ICME EPM Example Redacted 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
School of Civil Engineering
CIVE5170M ICME/EPM DISSERTATION
Submitted in accordance with the requirement for the degree of:
Master of Science (Engineering)

in
Engineering Project Management
AGE, GENDER AND INADEQUATE INTEGRATION: RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT OF

YOUNG PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS IN THE UK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
By
JOSEPH S WATTON
September 2020
CIVE5170M EPM Dissertation University of Leeds 2019/20
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 1

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Professor Giorgio Locatelli, for his
invaluable expertise, advice, guidance and patience throughout this research project.
I also thank my girlfriend, Cody, for always listening and supporting me, and for keeping me grounded
and focused when I’d be a bit too relaxed.
And last but not least, I thank my parents and sister (and Rocky) for always believing in me, encouraging
me, and constantly letting me know how proud they are of me.


Abstract
This paper focuses on the jeopardised development of young project team members (PTMs) in the UK
construction industry. Historically, a great deal of focus has been put towards sexism / gender
discrimination and hiring of women in this industry, as well as ageism towards older members due to
the “ageing workforce.” Limited research, however, has been put towards the effects towards young
people and additionally how young men can struggle in the environment. Upon research of the effects
of ageism, gender-based issues and poor integration methods towards young PTMs, 4 young female
and 4 young male PTMs, all of whom were aged 16-25 and had up to 2 years’ industrial experience,
were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. After their responses were thematically analysed,
the results provided a vast range of information about how young PTMs can struggle. Firstly, both
young female and male PTMs are open to the effects of ageism, with the common source of these being
older men (both office-based staff and operatives). Second, project managers (PMs) and other PTMs
lack in understanding and importance of age and gender-related subjects, and therefore a non-inclusive
atmosphere and remains for young female and male PTMs, with the common source of this being older
men once again. Thirdly, PMs do not adequately value young PTMs, and although the tasks given to
them are sometimes role-related, in many cases they are unhelpful for their development. The author
concludes masculinity as the reason behind age and gender challenges, and it decreases the ability for
young PTMs to develop. The author also concludes inadequate attention to, and investment in, young
PTMs as the reason some may struggle to integrate and feel valued by their team. The author suggests
that more of an anti-masculinity focus is utilised in the construction industry to prevent or reduce the
age and gender related challenges. Furthermore, more attention from PMs towards young PTMs is
required through delegating role-specific tasks and ensuring an inclusive environment in order for the
young PTMs to feel valued.
Key words: Development, young project team members (PTMs), integration, sexism, masculinity,
gender roles, gender discrimination, ageism, age discrimination, inclusion, value, UK construction
industry.


Table of Contents
List of figures ....................................................................................................................... 8
List of tables ......................................................................................................................... 9
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 9
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 11
1.1 Context ........................................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Research aim .................................................................................................................. 14
1.4 Research objectives ........................................................................................................ 14
2 Gap in the body of knowledge ..................................................................................... 15

2.1 Literature review............................................................................................................ 15
2.1.1 Workplace discrimination: cases in the UK and UK construction industry workforce .................. 15
2.1.2 Gender discrimination in UK construction industry .................................................................... 20
2.1.3 Gender roles in UK construction industry................................................................................... 23
2.1.4 Age discrimination in the UK construction industry ................................................................... 24
2.1.5 Workforce integration and development of young PTMs ............................................................ 26
2.2 Identifying the gap ......................................................................................................... 29
3 Research design methodology ..................................................................................... 32

3.1 Research strategy ........................................................................................................... 32
3.2 Research process ............................................................................................................ 33
3.3 Data collection methods ................................................................................................. 34
3.3.1 Interview type ........................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.2 Sample ...................................................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Data analysis methods .................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Research ethics ............................................................................................................... 36
3.6 Interview questions justifications .................................................................................. 38
3.7 Research methodology summary ................................................................................... 38
4 Results ......................................................................................................................... 41
4.1 Age .................................................................................................................................. 41
4.1.1 Challenges of being a young PTM ............................................................................................. 41
4.1.2 Positive experiences of being a young PTM ............................................................................... 45
4.2 Gender ............................................................................................................................ 49
4.2.1 The pros and cons – different gender-based impacts to young PTMs........................................... 49

4.2.2 Similar negative gender-based impacts to young PTMs .............................................................. 58

4.2.3 Combatting gender challenges for young PTMs ......................................................................... 61
4.3 Integration ...................................................................................................................... 66
4.3.1 The current integration methods ................................................................................................. 66
4.3.2 Advice from the young PTMs .................................................................................................... 74
5 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 80
5.1 Gender ............................................................................................................................ 80
5.1.1 Literature comparisons .............................................................................................................. 80
5.1.2 Testing H1................................................................................................................................. 86
5.2 Age .................................................................................................................................. 86
5.2.2 Testing H2 and H3..................................................................................................................... 88
5.3 Integration ...................................................................................................................... 89
5.3.2 Testing H4................................................................................................................................. 92
6 Conclusions, limitations and recommendations .......................................................... 93

6.1 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 93
6.2 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 95
6.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 96
6.3.1 Construction bodies/companies: Inclusion sessions .................................................................... 96
6.3.2 PMs: Inclusion sessions ............................................................................................................. 97
6.3.3 PMs: The integration dos and don’ts .......................................................................................... 97
6.3.4 PMs: Preparation and inclusion efforts ....................................................................................... 98
6.3.5 Young PTMs: Advice from other young PTMs .......................................................................... 99
7 References ................................................................................................................. 101
8 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 111
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 112

Appendix A – Ethics form ....................................................................................................... 113
Appendix B – Informed consent form ..................................................................................... 120
Appendix C – Interview information sheet ............................................................................. 122
Appendix D – Interview schedule ............................................................................................ 128
Appendix E – Interview transcripts and participant profiles ................................................ 131
Participant A ........................................................................................................................................ 132
Participant B ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Participant C ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Participant D ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Participant E ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Participant F ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Participant G ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Participant H ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of figures
Figure 3.1 Full research design process: adapted from Bryman and Bell (2007) ............................. 33
Figure 3.2 "Structure of a thematic network" (Attride-Stirling, 2001) .............................................. 36
Figure 4.1 Lack of integration thematic network .............................................................................. 42
Figure 4.2 Male-dominated impacts thematic network ..................................................................... 44
Figure 4.3 Project dependent thematic network ................................................................................ 45
Figure 4.4 Supportive team thematic network .................................................................................. 46
Figure 4.5 Personal development thematic network ......................................................................... 48
Figure 4.6 Sexism and gender discrimination thematic network ....................................................... 50
Figure 4.7 Male dominated impacts thematic network...................................................................... 51
Figure 4.8 Supportive team thematic network .................................................................................. 53
Figure 4.9 Personality dependent thematic network ......................................................................... 54
Figure 4.10 Male dominated impacts thematic network .................................................................... 55
Figure 4.11 Personal dependences thematic network ........................................................................ 56
Figure 4.12 The male advantage thematic network ........................................................................... 56
Figure 4.13 Inclusive team thematic network ................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.14 Personality dependent thematic network........................................................................ 58
Figure 4.15 Male dominated impacts thematic network .................................................................... 59
Figure 4.16 Lack of effort thematic network .................................................................................... 61
Figure 4.17 Male ignorance/environment thematic network ............................................................. 62
Figure 4.18 Some hope in the industry thematic network ................................................................. 63
Figure 4.19 More supportive team thematic network ........................................................................ 64
Figure 4.20 More diverse team thematic network ............................................................................. 65
Figure 4.21 Nothing can be done thematic network .......................................................................... 66
Figure 4.22 Personality dependent thematic network........................................................................ 66
Figure 4.23 Project and site related tasks thematic network .............................................................. 67
Figure 4.24 Well mentored thematic network ................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.25 Value to the team thematic network .............................................................................. 69
Figure 4.26 Dependences thematic network ..................................................................................... 71

Figure 4.27 Non-developing tasks thematic network ........................................................................ 72

Figure 4.28 Lack of support thematic network ................................................................................. 73
Figure 4.30 Better preparation thematic network .............................................................................. 74
Figure 4.31 Increase inclusion efforts thematic network ................................................................... 75
Figure 4.33 Self-integrate thematic network ..................................................................................... 77
Figure 4.34 Be proactive thematic network ...................................................................................... 78
Figure 4.35 Considerations thematic network .................................................................................. 79
List of tables
Table 3.1 Qualitative research strategy: adapted from Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28) ...................... 32
Table 3.2 Quantitative research strategy: adapted from Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28)..................... 32
Table 3.3 Origin of the interview questions ..................................................................................... 38
Table 3.4 Research design summary of how the objectives are met ................................................. 39
Table 3.5 Hypotheses relation to research questions ........................................................................ 40
Abbreviations
N.B.: Individual uses of an abbreviation are clarified in-text.
CPD = continued personal development

PM = project manager
PTM = project team member
SME = small-medium (sized) enterprise


1 Introduction
This section is split into four subsections: firstly, the context of this research’s key themes; secondly,
the purpose of the research from the author’s perspective; thirdly, the research aim, and; fourthly, the
research objectives.
1.1 Context
A focus towards young people in the UK construction industry tends to be overlooked, for a variety
reasons. Out of the 2.31 million people in the UK construction industry (Nomis, 2019), women account
for 5% of engineering roles (Brown, 2019) and just 2% of site operative roles (Rawlinson, 2019). This
‘gender split’, tends to take precedence over other unethical workplace practices within the industry,
since it remains to be, and has historically been, an issue; Rawlinson (2019) describes how, regardless
of the 67% increase in women in the workforce from the early 1970s to 2013, just 14% of the
construction industry are women, a percentage that has remained for over 20 years.
These 2.31 million people can vary in many ways from one another. Cambridge Dictionary (2020a)
provides a definition of discrimination, describing it as “treating a person or particular group of people
differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people…” Workplace
discrimination is a concept that places these factors listed previously in the workplace environment. In
the UK, a Glassdoor (2019) survey revealed that 55% of people “have witnessed or experienced
discrimination on age, gender, race or LGBTQ status in the workplace.” The criteria that discrimination
comes under can be listed as the following, as collated by GOV.UK (2012) which uses the Equality Act
2010:
 age
 gender reassignment
 being married or in a civil partnership
 being pregnant or on maternity leave
 disability
 race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
 religion or belief
 sex
 sexual orientation
Two topics that are strongly related to the gender split are gender discrimination and gender roles. A
common example of this issue is that the construction industry, both UK and globally, is made for men;

Bergman et al. (2014) explores men’s perceptions of women in construction, with results concluding
that the majority of men agreed with the survey’s factors that point towards the industry’s gender
inequality. Gender discrimination can be defined as “a situation in which someone is treated less well
because of their sex, usually when a woman is treated less well than a man” (Cambridge Dictionary,
2020b). This is similar to sexism, although sexism generally refers to women being less able (to carry
out a particular task) than men (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020c). Regardless, these are both directed
towards women. In the UK construction industry, gender discrimination and sexism are still
commonplace, as research across the last three decades continues to suggest (Gale, 1994; Dainty et al.,
2000; Dainty et al., 2004; Powell et al., 2006; Sang, 2007; Powell et al., 2009; Baxter and Wallace,
2009; Worrall et al., 2010; Sang and Powell, 2012; Wright, 2013; Powell and Sang, 2015; Clarke et al.,
2017; Naoum et al., 2020).
The other topic is gender/sex roles. This can be defined as “the shared beliefs that apply to individuals
on the basis of their socially identified sex” (Eagly, 1987, cited in Eagly, 2009, p. 645). In other words,
it is the perceived characteristics of males and females. In the context of women, gender roles can be
closely linked with sexism, as Agapiou (2002) covers. With men however, sexism does not necessarily
apply as men are rarely a minority, particularly in the construction industry. Gender roles affects men
in a way that revolves around masculinity; Iacuone (2005) explores this concept, stating how, in
construction, “there is a belief that men need to be tough and should not be afraid to partake in
physically demanding tasks” (p.250). Cheng (1999) notes the characteristics of ‘hegemonic’
masculinity, which refers to a “culturally ideali[s]ed form of masculine character” (Connell, 1990,
cited in Cheng, 1999, p.297); these are: “domination, aggressiveness, competitiveness, athletic prowess,
stoicism, and control” p.298). Other research further suggests that gender roles and masculinity affect
men in the construction industry as well as women (Rumens, 2013; Chan, 2013; Agapiu, 2002; George
and Loosemore, 2018), who do not conform to this ‘idealised’ view of masculinity within the industry.
Like gender, age can be used in discriminatory circumstances, notably through ageism. Regardless of
its presence within the construction industry, ageism is defined as “unfair treatment of people because
of their age” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). However, historically, ageism is referred to by many
(Sargeant, 2011; Bytheway, 2005; Taylor and Walker, 1994; Angouri, 2012; McGoldrick and
Arrowsmith, 2017; Parry and Tyson, 2009; Nelson, 2005; Minichiello et al., 2000) as being directed
towards the older demographic, i.e. treating older people unfairly because of their age. The Engineering
Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) (2019) found that 55% of employers believe “the ageing
workforce is the main reason for the skills gap.” Furthermore, older people typically require a higher
salary due to their experience and need for a higher income, which places an additional burden on the
organisations employing them and the public (McGoldrick and Arrowsmith, 2017; Abrams et al., 2011).

In contrast to this focus towards ‘older people’, there are the effects of age discrimination towards the
younger generation; although there are significantly more opportunities available to the younger
generation with regards to work, combined with the fact they require lower salaries, young people are
affected in other ways. However, since this is not perceived to be as great an issue as ageism (i.e.
towards older people), less research is focused in this area. Sang (2007) found that “all young architects
may be vulnerable to problems on site and that young female architects may be particularly vulnerable”
(p.246). Additionally, Lorreto et al. (2000) and Angouri (2012) note how younger people wish to have
the term age discrimination inclusive of all ages.
Sang’s (2007) research is suggestive that there is a link between gender discrimination/roles and its
effects towards young people, since older people (i.e. not 16-25-year-olds) with experience in a working
environment are ‘hardened’ to its effects, which only increases with age (Ainsworth, 2002).
Additionally, as Ainsworth (2002) notes with regards to gender and age, “there is much to be gained
from looking at their combined influence” (p.580). With regards to Sang’s (2007) research, however,
this study has limitations, as do many research papers in this area (e.g. Mazerolle et al., 2012); the
interview participants discussed the problems women faced, both young and otherwise, but the
interview did not include questions directed towards problems specific to both young and male
architects.
Studies have been conducted to address integration procedures, however in some cases the word
‘integration’ does not refer to the development of young people into their role, as is evident in certain
research (e.g. Farndale et al., 2015; van der Velden and Wolbers, 2003). It has been proven that better
methods of communication and support from others increases the development of young learners
(Mazerolle et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014), therefore there is no reason to say this cannot be applied to
a similar circumstance in the UK construction industry, i.e. integrating young PTMs, which has been
explored to a reasonable extent by Russell (2002). Also, this increased development has been proven to
contribute to an enhanced team performance (Smith et al., 1994), therefore the benefits of improved
integration methods are clear but not commonly employed; this is also not something that can simply
be put down solely to increased experience (Wong et al., 2008; Fuller and Unwin, 2004).
1.2 Purpose
From the evidence and statistics covered in Section 1.1, it is clear that there is a focus on some topics
(e.g. sexism, gender discrimination, ageism (towards older people)) more than others (e.g. young people
(particularly men), development, integration). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to help the
development of young (16-25 y/o), inexperienced (2 years or less) project team members (PTMs), male

and female, who may struggle to integrate into the project environment. The author hypothesises that,
since young PTMs are the future of the construction industry, the currently under-par integration
procedures (from the author’s experience amongst the lack of other literature) and effects of gender
roles, gender discrimination and age discrimination do not bode well for development of their abilities,
and therefore involvement, in their respective projects. Furthermore, the author suggests that a more
efficient system whereby project managers (PMs), as well as all other project members, follow better
integration procedures will benefit young PTMs in the following ways:
 Performing effectively at a faster rate, benefitting the project and therefore the company.
 Ability to use and promote improved integration practices themselves to help other young
PTMs who are struggling to fit in (should PMs not employ said tactics).
 Enjoying their environment more due to being treated as a valued part of the project team,
which increases job satisfaction, enhances work output, allows them to freely converse with
others and decreases the likelihood of impacting mental health/wellbeing.
 Ability to develop social relationships faster.
1.3 Research aim
Following this introduction into the research’s key themes, the aim of this research is:
To investigate how age, gender and current integration methods impact the development of
young (16-25 years old) and inexperienced (2 years or less) project team members in the UK
construction industry.
1.4 Research objectives
The objectives that the author deems suitable in identifying how to meet the aim are to:
1. Develop understanding of the key workforce discrimination areas, in the UK workforce and in
the UK construction industry.
2. Understand sexism, gender discrimination and gender roles in the UK construction industry.
3. Understand age discrimination in the UK construction industry.
4. Investigate how gender roles & gender discrimination and age discrimination affect young,
inexperienced project team members (PTMs).
5. Investigate how current methods of integration affect the development of young, inexperienced
PTMs in the project environment.
6. Develop procedures and provide guidance for better integration of young PTMs for project
managers (PMs).

2 Gap in the body of knowledge
Section 2 outlines the gap in the body of knowledge, through a detailed assessment of the body of
knowledge (Section 2.1) and an identification of the gap that arises from said body which includes the
author’s hypotheses (Section 2.2).
2.1 Literature review
In order to identify the gap in the body of knowledge, what must first be analysed is the existing
practices and beliefs; this is outlined through the remainder of this section, with subsections derived
from the key areas of this research.
2.1.1 Workplace discrimination: cases in the UK and UK construction industry workforce
This section reviews an extensive amount of research conducted on workplace, or workforce,

discrimination in the UK, in order to gain an understanding of one of this research’s key themes. As
listed in Section 1.1, the Equality Act 2010 provides the discrimination criteria. To avoid entering great
detail, the themes that will be explored in this section are as follows: age; being pregnant or on maternity
leave; disability; race; religion; sex, and; sexual orientation. The reason these areas have been chosen
is that, although the intention within this section is to take a general UK view as well as a UK
construction industry view, it is more difficult to compare the other topics (i.e. gender reassignment and
being married or in a civil partnership) to the construction industry, let alone in the UK, since they are
not as common. They are, however, important issues, and can be explored at the reader’s leisure in these
examples for a) gender reassignment (i.e. transgender) (Ozturk and Tatli, 2016; Whittle, 2002; Köllen,
2016; Whittle et al., 2007) and b) marriage and civil partnerships (Hand, 2012; Siegel and Wang, 2018).
Each of the discussed discriminatory areas are discussed in the context of the UK workforce and UK
construction industry cases – initially, the author conducted literature reviews of global cases, however
to keep the focus more specific, this has been negated from the literature review.
To begin with, it is important to discuss discrimination as a whole. As the general concept,

discrimination plays a large part of the problem in the workplace. Glassdoor (2019), as previously
mentioned, found that 55% of people “have witnessed or experienced discrimination on age, gender,
race or LGBTQ status in the workplace.” Wood et al. (2013) highlight the effects that workplace
discrimination has on employee well-being and mental health, noting that discrimination from managers
had the strongest impact in their study of 1,733 UK mental health workers. However, Dainty and
Bagilhole (2005) outline how equality, diversity and inclusion, acting as key discriminatory variables,

in the construction industry has been rectified (to an extent) through various legislations; these
legislations are directly related to the discriminatory criteria mentioned previously under the Equality
Act 2010. Using this knowledge, it is clear that this ‘rectification’ Dainty and Bagilhole (2005) pointed
out 15 years ago is not yet evident. Therefore, discrimination is still an issue; there is only so much that
these acts and legislations can really do, as they do not put a physical barrier on the way people think
or act. Moreover, relating this to the UK construction industry, it is unlikely that such acts will prevent
a 31% white (derived from GOV.UK, 2019), 95% male (Brown, 2019) majority workforce from
following procedures, since there is little reason for such a demographic to have experienced
discrimination and therefore understand the importance of these procedures.
Racism / racial discrimination
The first discriminatory area to be discussed is racial discrimination or, more commonly referred,
racism. With regards to the UK workforce, Stevens et al. (2012) found that migrant care workers
experienced “directly racist comments and refusals to receive services.” Additionally, Cangiano et al.
(2009, pp.146-147) discovered that whilst “East European care workers overall did not refer to
experiences of racism directed towards them,” racism and race discrimination was inflicted upon their
black and Asian colleagues by older people in their workplace (a care home). Stevens et al. (2012,
p.259) also notes how “UK nationals from black and minority ethnic (BME) groups” are less “likely to
experience racism both in the workplace and in the community” than migrants in the UK. Regardless,
it is agreed amongst these investigations mentioned and others (Kofman et al., 2009; McGregor, 2007)
that it is immensely difficult for migrants in the workplace and community. In fact, Stevens et al. (2012,
p.266) found that black migrant workers experienced racism more so in relation to skin colour than
Asian and white Other workers, who experienced racism with regards to being from overseas countries.
This also shows how different ethnicities are impacted in different ways depending on skin colour. A
particular focus is put towards care work by the researchers mentioned however, since this is a particular
area where racism and race discrimination are common than other workplace’s due to the personal and
close nature of the worker/patient relationship.
With regards to the UK construction industry, the workforce is, as mentioned previously, dominated by
white workers at 31% of the total (GOV.UK, 2019). In order of largest to smallest, the other ethnic
groups are mixed race (17%), Indian (15%), black (14%), other including Chinese & Other Asian (14%)
and Pakistani/Bangladeshi (8%) (GOV.UK, 2019). GOV.UK (2019) also notes that, of all the different
UK workforce sectors, the highest percentage of white workers were present in the construction
industry; since the term ‘construction’ is used in a general sense, this includes members in office, site,
engineering and management roles. Fellini et al. (2007, p.291) finds that UK construction “companies
recruit principally abroad (non-EU) workforce in order to cope with a shortage of the highly skilled,”

however this does not imply racism is not present; more so that these companies utilise the fact that
non-EU workers may be cheaper to employ in a site operative position. Although little research into
UK construction industry racism, Dainty et al.’s (2004, p.79) research found that ethnic minorities faced
“racist name-calling, jokes, harassment, bullying, intimidation, and physical violence,” whilst said
members also recalled that they received less support and feedback than their white counterparts. Cavill
(1999) also identified that 39% of ethnic construction employees felt discriminated against. In terms or
recent literature however, there is little conducted on the matter of racism in the UK construction
industry that would suggest any improvements; that being said, this is sure to be a topic of future interest
and focus.
Disability
Disability is an area of discrimination that, like discrimination, covers a vast array of issues. The
Equality Act 2010 defines a disabled person has having “a physical or mental impairment” that “has a
substantial and long-term adverse effect on [a person’s] ability to do normal day-to-day activities.” In
the UK, it is agreed that disabled workers face the same problems as those previously mentioned
amongst other issues; Newton et al. (2007) found how disabled people find it more difficult to both gain
and stay in employment, with Brohan et al. (2010) identifying how, although some managers understand
mental health law and hiring policy, attitudes towards mental health sufferers were largely the same.
Fevre et al. (2013, p.300) supports this, identifying that “line managers and supervisors are responsible
for the largest share of ill-treatment.” Other researchers (Foster and Scott, 2015; Foster and Fosh, 2010)
also call for managers and organisations to better understand and accommodate disability sufferers
sooner in order to prevent furthering these issues. In contrast to these studies, however, Little et al.’s
(2011) research shed some light on attitudes towards mental health; the study concluded that, between
2006 and 2009, employers’ views towards offering adjustments and industry support towards mental
health sufferers had both increased, from 68% to 87% and 76% to 88% respectively (p.73). This study
is reassuring, however, actions speak louder than words; until these statistics are actually implemented
into the workplace, they will have little benefit towards disabled people.
In the UK construction industry, disability is reported to affect approximately 5% of the workforce

(Construction Industry Council, 2015), however there remains a large gap in disability discrimination
knowledge. Lingard and Saunders’ (2004) research found that disability management, i.e. “formal
rehabilitation and return-to-work programmes and practices,” in Australia was not commonly adopted
by construction companies, particularly by smaller firms. Furthermore, Clarke et al. (2009) provides
research comparing UK to Dutch practices, however this focuses more towards how regulated each
other’s policies are, essentially tackling the different levels of injury incurred by construction works.
These two examples mentioned are both aimed towards the physical aspects of disability and procedures

surrounding workplace injuries; these are a more common focus in construction due to its dangerous
nature, therefore they do not necessarily solve issues regarding disability discrimination. Ormerod and
Newton (2013) do however acknowledge the effects of disability on young people looking at
construction as a career choice; they find that their general wish is to be treated equally as opposed to
favourably, in a more inclusive environment than what the construction industry is perceived to be.
Also, they support the author’s claim once again, noting that the Equality Act 2010 has not “improved
inclusion for young disabled people especially within the context of the construction industry”
(Ormerod and Newton, 2013). It is evident that future research is needed on this topic before disability
discrimination is both recognised and overcome.
Gender/sexual orientation
The next topic is gender, or sexual, orientation. This regards members who fall under the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) category. For the UK workforce, a notable study
conducted by Burke (1994) explored the discrimination that gay police officers face; he found that
officers often chose to “live ‘double’ as opposed to ‘integrated’ lives” in the workplace, essentially
meaning they felt forced to act as though they were not homosexual to benefit their workplace well-
being. He recounts that the stress they dealt with was in many cases “detrimental to mental health and
significant in the ability of officers to perform effectively at work” (p.192). Jones and Williams (2015)
then examine the changes through the years of this study’s impact, finding that, despite “considerable
improvements in police working environments for minority officers,” there remains “instances of
homophobic discrimination in training, deployment and promotion […] in British policing” (p.208).
This represents the slow change in attitudes of heterosexuals towards LGBTQs, not just apparent in the
UK police force but across the UK workforce (see Aspinall and Mitton, 2008). Drydakis (2015)
supports this claim, concluding that, based on evidence suggesting gay men and women received less
invitations to interviews and a lower salary in the interviews they did receive invitations for compared
to their heterosexual counterparts, “heteronormative discourse continues to reproduce and negatively
affect the labour market prospects of gay men and lesbians” (p.1769).
The UK construction industry, and the construction industry in general, hosts a particular problem with
gender orientation; Construction Industry Council’s (2015) survey identified the industry to be
dominated by 97.9% heterosexuals, with 1.0% bisexual, 0.8% gay men and 0.2% gay women. A factor
in this almost negligible statistic in terms of non-heterosexuals is down to the industry’s “tough, dirty
and physical” perception, making it exclusive of gay men (amongst others), Powell and Sang (2013,
p.796) note. Rumens (2013) recognises that gay men in the UK construction industry are seen as having
feminine qualities, i.e. being “sensitive, caring supportive and communicative,” which, although “may
have positive implications,” can mean gay men struggle in trying to change their image to succeed their

career in the industry (p.810). The same challenge is noticed for bisexual men, who face barriers to
accessing employment, developing, well-being and performance (Rumens, 2013, p. 807). The literature
explored in this section all points towards the minority groups struggling to progress their career, and
this is another example. In contrast to men, there is the topic of gay women in the industry. According
to Wright (2013), who’s research focused on the experiences of gay women in UK construction, it is
also a very difficult environment; where heterosexual women have the issue of gender discrimination
and sexism, gay women have this issue as well as feeling as though they have to conform to a particular
dress code and appearance, as well as having to deal with expectations from others (i.e. heterosexual
men) that they should respond to their advances and jokes. It is a difficult prospect to be an LGBTQ
member aspiring for a career in construction. Time and further research will tell how this can be
improved to create an inclusive industry for all.
Religion
The next topic of discussion for discrimination in the UK workplace is religion. Vickers (2016) studies
the change over time in religious discrimination in the UK workplace, stating that, although the level
of discrimination has declined to an extent, “experiences of discrimination on grounds of religion and
belief in the workplace remain commonplace” (pp.25-26). She also acknowledges that the workplace is
a difficult context to ensure equality, whereby “rights are rarely enjoyed in absolute terms” (p.29).
Vickers has also made known the inadequate protection for religion in the workplace (2003; 2010), and
has in later years summarised that “religious staff can expect that their religious practices or beliefs
will be accommodated at work so long as there remains a reasonable balance between the needs of
staff and the needs of their employers” (2015, p.114). It appears evident that although there have been
convincing changes in religion in the UK over the last few decades, “[t]here is currently insufficient
evidence to draw reliable conclusions about the nature and extent of religious discrimination in the
UK” (Woodhead and Catto, 2009, iv). Therefore, workplace discrimination of religion will be a
continually studied subject in the coming years with the surge in recognition for equality.
Construction Industry Council (2015) provides statistics for the different percentages of religion in the
UK construction industry, identifying the following (in descending order): Christian = 45.8%, None =
42%, Muslim = 6.2%, Hindu = 2.5%, Other = 2.0%, Buddhist = 0.8%, Sikh = 0.5% and Jewish = 0.2%.
Unsurprisingly, no religion and Christian are the two highest for UK construction. With regards to
religious discrimination, the author argues that Christians do not experience this to the same extent as
other religions, like, for example, Muslims; this is not just due to the fact that Christians are not a
minority (i.e. from Construction Industry Council (2015) statistics), but for the fact that Christian
religious practices do not interfere anywhere near as much as, for example, Muslim religious practices
do. This is backed up by Missa (2013) who notes that others do not favour inclusion of Muslim practices

as much as others due to the number of times a day the Friday prayer; this can “interfere with work
schedules which other employe[e]s and managers may frown upon” (p.185). Furthermore, there is the
argument that many Christians do not actually carry out Christian practices i.e. going to church on
Sunday, but are Christian nonetheless as they have been baptised. Therefore, it is clear that a non-
invasive religion such as Christianity does not receive discrimination to the same extent as minority
religions e.g. Islam, and so researchers (Missa, 2013; Missa and Ahmed, 2010) tend to focus on these
minority groups. However, other than said researchers, little focus has been put towards the level of
religious discrimination in the UK construction industry, therefore a vast amount of efforts must be
used in future research to combat this. Alternatively, this may suggest that it is no more of an issue in
the UK construction industry than it is elsewhere in the UK workplace.
Gender and age
The last topics left to address are gender discrimination (including sexism), gender roles, and age
discrimination (including ageism). Since these topics will be discussed in length with regards to the UK
construction industry in Sections 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, discussion of them has been negated from this
section.
2.1.2 Gender discrimination in UK construction industry
This next section covers the literature on gender discrimination (and sexism) in the UK construction
industry. Due to the predominantly male nature of the industry, the topic of discussion in this case is
women, to be in keeping with discrimination’s minority focus. This section aims to keep a UK focus,
however some examples are from international construction industry cases to incorporate the key
findings of other important research.
With the knowledge that the UK construction industry, as well as worldwide, is a male-dominated
workforce, gender discrimination towards women is commonplace. Powell and Sang (2015) explore
the everyday experiences of sexism that women face in the UK construction industry. They found that
sexism, gender discrimination and exclusion remain, regardless of the fact that some of women
interviewed did not mind the sexist comments in the slightest and merely saw these as jokes (Powell
and Sang, 2015, p.925). Elsewhere, from Wright’s (2013) study of heterosexual and gay women, it is
apparent that women experience gender discrimination regardless of their orientation, even if there are
different forms in the way this occurs. Gender discrimination acts almost as an umbrella term inclusive
of gender orientation discrimination, since, in this context, it is a target towards women based on a
combination of their gender and orientation.

Naoum et al. (2020) examined the difference in career paths of men and women, whose survey of 60
men and 57 women revealed that, by and large, the retention of women across all the consultant
companies was lacking in efforts to improve this. After analysis of their study, it indicates that a
potential reason for this may be due to the fact that 70% of women and 40% of men felt that gender
diversity remains an issue (Naoum et al., 2020, p.10). Being a very new piece of research on an
important topic, this research is reliable; it shows how much of an issue men’s perceptions of gender
inequality are to this day, regardless of the vast amount of research that has been conducted. Previous
research on the career paths of women has been conducted by Dainty et al. (2000), who recognise that
commonplace gender discrimination ultimately limits the speed of their development in comparison to
men’s. An important hypothesis they make however is that, regardless of the UK construction industry’s
efforts to make it more appealing to women, they still face barriers to progressing their careers; the
researchers of this paper concluded that if the industry is to be made more female-friendly, the
appropriate steps must be taken in order to ensure their development, and that they should not be
attracted to the industry unless this criteria is met. Dainty et al.’s (2004) research is also suggestive of
this theory, concluding that the best way forward would be to apply a “more holistic approach towards
managing diversity” (p.75), and that discrimination needs to be not only addressed, but that the industry
must also take proactive measures to recruit and maintain women.
Gale’s (1994) work explores the reasoning behind why the UK construction industry employs few
women, for which he concludes inadequate inclusion, which may deter both young women and young
men. He also notes that, at an institutional level i.e. school students and graduates, an improved image
of the UK construction industry which utilises a more inclusive environment would result in changes
to “working practices and management style” (p.12), however as Dainty et al. (2000) state, the image
is not worth improving unless the appropriate steps are taken to ensure inclusion and equality in the
workplace. Sang and Powell (2012) also argued that the existing policies that suggest examples of how
women would bring more to the engineering sector were disregarding the ways in which the industry
tends to operate, in terms of its gendered nature. Furthermore, the researchers hypothesised that the
actual structure and practices of the UK construction industry must be focused on in order to reduce the
gender imbalance and exclusion (Sang and Powell, 2012). Slightly in contrary to Dainty et al.’s (2000)
hypothesis is Baxter and Wallace (2009); they note that although it is evident how, even if women were
to enter into the UK construction industry, they would find it difficult to feature in men’s discourse i.e.
general conversations. They hypothesise that this would place women in the ‘out-group’ (since they are
the minority) which could play to their advantage in that they would potentially become a threat to the
standard white male majority (Baxter and Wallace, 2009, pp.423-424).

Worrall et al. (2010) investigated the barriers to women in the UK construction industry, finding that
the largest factors in this were due to the “male-dominated organisational cultures and inflexible
working practices” (p.268). Furthermore, the researchers suggested particular mentoring and support
methods to ensuring the continued personal development (CPD) of women; this research is therefore
supportive of Dainty et al.’s (2000) hypothesis that the correct approaches should be taken to maintain
women and not just to attract them to the industry. Also in support of Dainty et al.’s (2000) theory is
Clarke et al.’s (2017) research on the associated policies and practices, whereby upon examination of
said literature, they concluded that, “[t]o have an impact, diversity measures have to be integral,
specific, contextual and mandatory,” and that these need to be implemented through e.g. training and
support mechanisms that ensure inclusion of women is understood by all construction workers, notably
operatives (p.1). The operatives topic is also considered by Sang (2007); she deduced that, upon
interviewing various female architectural students about their experiences on site, both males and
females are susceptible to the problems that are encountered with operatives (p.246); whilst these
problems encountered, i.e. teasing, are not inherently related to gender, it does signify how gender can
sometimes not be a factor in receiving discrimination, and that experience and youth opens another area
for discrimination to take place.
The purpose of Powell et al.’s (2006) research was to investigate whether a larger ratio of women in
the UK construction industry would work in terms of increasing inclusion and allowing toleration of
change better. However, the women used for data collection almost contradicted the views that many
may have, in which they did not necessarily have a view on decreasing gender discrimination and that
they “value[d] their “novelty” status” (p.688). The researchers therefore concluded that this did little
in the fight for women’s equality in construction, and that, in order to prevent supporting the masculine
culture of engineering, men need to be part of the change as well (Powell et al., 2006). Powell et al.’s
(2009) later study of women students’ work experiences found that the women they interviewed had
developed coping strategies to deal with men where they essentially modify their gender i.e. gender
performance, for example, acting like one of the boys in order to fit in more. They concluded that this
was not an acceptable situation for women to be in, and that this kind of “gender performance does
nothing to challenge the gendered culture of engineering” (Powell et al., 2009, p.411). Therefore two
of Powell et al.’s studies gave results that did suggest women in the industry are not actively doing
enough to combat the industry’s large gender discrimination and sexism problem.
By way of including some international examples to aid the literature, Alvez and English (2017)
explored South African female construction employees’ perceptions of gender and sexism. The research
concluded that, as with much of the other research examined in the UK, sexist practices are in place
that restrict the development of women’s careers in construction (Alvez and English, 2017). As
previously explored, however, South Africa are particularly far behind in terms of reducing

discrimination, due to the widespread segregation of the different ethnicities present. Also, Goldenhar
et al.’s (1998) study found that US women in the construction industry have a higher job satisfaction
when they have support from their male colleagues and responsibility over others, and that gender
discrimination and sexism caused headaches and nausea. This is likely to be the same in a UK context,
as these findings indicate the basic human nature of job satisfaction.
2.1.3 Gender roles in UK construction industry
Contrary to looking at gender roles in a general setting (e.g. Eagly, 2009; Cheng, 1999), this section
reviews the literature surrounding gender roles in the UK construction industry. Where gender
discrimination and sexism have a larger research focus towards to women, particularly in construction
where they are a minority, gender roles capture’s both women and men; the author will focus primarily
on men for this topic, discussing masculinity concepts. The focus towards men has also been chosen to
ensure there is equal discussion of women and men in the industry. This section aims to keep a UK
focus, however some examples are from international construction industry cases.
Rumens’ (2013) study analyses masculinity and ‘queer theory’ in the UK construction industry, which
brings to light the idea that the process of ‘queering’ men “is about interrogating and deconstructing
social and cultural norms” (p.807). What is important in this research, particularly in support of men,
is that he recognises a gap in literature; that the ‘macho’ image of the UK construction industry means
that all men (and women) are expected to perform to this standard of work/character (i.e. gender roles),
but that not all “are able to meet these masculine ideals” (Rumens, 2013, p.802). This should bring
some comfort to men, author included, since the large focus on women can distract from another topic
that, regardless of it being historically and currently less significant than gender discrimination and
sexism towards women, remains important.
In a similar context to Rumens’ (2013) work, Chan (2013), who also studied the queer theory in the UK
construction industry, conducted interviews with non-heterosexual men and women about queering
interactions with men. An important remark made by Chan (2013) was “that one must transcend the
essential, binary view of gender categories … and deconstruct its performative aspects to explore how
gender relations are constituted outside the clear-cut confines of such categories” (p.817). In the
context of the UK construction industry, this ‘binary’ view of gender is a common perception, due to
its male-dominated workforce and sexist practices that gives the impression of ‘men vs women’. Chan
(2013) recognises this, and notes that these types of conclusions made by researchers are “rather bleak
in that the ‘male-ness’ of the industry is often blamed for the exclusion of, and troubles imposed on,
women working in the industry” (p.818). Chan’s (2013) work therefore is a step in the right direction,
with more focus on equality and equal opportunities.

Although this section is aimed towards the gender roles of males, Agapiou (2002) researched the UK
construction industry’s gender roles of women; the gender roles of construction workers, men and
women, is typically associated with masculine behaviour, hence why focusing on gender roles of
women is also important. What Agapiou (2002) found was that, contrary to many researchers, male
operatives had a respect for their fellow female operatives, and understood the need for change and
equal opportunities. Although many scenarios of male and female operative workplaces and interactions
may not employ these equality viewpoints, this is reassuring to women and men who strive for a more
equal industry.
Aside from Rumens’ (2013) and Chan’s (2013) important contribution to the research on UK
construction industry gender roles and masculinity effects towards men, the UK construction industry’s
focus is more towards gender discrimination and sexism (as identified in Section 2.1.2), meaning little
research that consider gender roles and masculinities effect on men. The author will therefore consider
some international examples; George and Loosemore (2018), who examined the attitudes of Australian
operatives towards masculinity through the use of a quantitative male role norms model, concluded that
their results showed that masculinity in the Australian construction industry showed a “more inclusive
and less homogenic” view than other research has indicated (p.10). Iacuone’s (2005) study of Australian
construction workers also examined masculinity, where the bulk of his research identified the “tough
guy” and “one-upmanship” nature of the construction industry. A notable finding was that some men
would partake in life-threatening activities to assert their masculinity, and Iacuone (2005) concluded
that “focus needs to be placed on informal workplace cultures and how they shape perceptions of
[operational health and safety]” (p.265). This is unlikely therefore to provide a very inviting image to
men who do not conform to these sorts of behaviour.
2.1.4 Age discrimination in the UK construction industry
The next area of this literature review is age discrimination, including ageism. Unfortunately, little
research has been conducted in this area in relation to the UK construction industry. However, the
construction industry in terms of the age demographic is less of an issue than the gender demographic,
which is most likely the reason as to why little research is present.
Firstly, there is debate around what constitutes as age discrimination and ageism. Sargeant (2011) notes
how age discrimination refers to having a “negative image of older people” (p.1), with his research
supporting those who had campaigned to lift the mandatory retirement age in 2011. Bytheway (2005)
also appears to support this view, stating that, in the same way women suffer from sexism, older people

suffer from ageism as this is implied by the term ‘discrimination’ (p.361), whilst Taylor and Walker
(1994) focus on the decline of older workers in the UK. However, Loretto et al. (2000) note how ageism
should be viewed in its effects towards younger people as well; their research found how students had
experienced forms of ageism in employment, and favoured the idea of “legislative protection against
age discrimination, with blanket coverage irrespective of age” (p.279). Similarly, Angouri (2012)
describes age discrimination, stating that it typically focuses on the idea of an ageing workforce, but
that it actually considers how “it affects both younger and older employees” (p.255). The effects of age
discrimination towards younger employees is evidenced by Sang (2007), who, as previously mentioned
in Section 2.1.2, found that regardless of gender, young architects were subjected to site-based
discrimination from operatives (p.246); it is clear therefore that lack of experience leaves a lot of young
people open to the effects of age discrimination.
Through analysis of the contrasting views of researchers in this field, therefore, it appears that some
may have a more biased view of ageism and forget to recognise the effects towards the other age
minorities in the particular workforce, which, as is evident, is apparent with both the youngest and
oldest workforce groups (Office for National Statistics, 2019). This requires clarification in order to
fully understand the extents of age discrimination.
Unfortunately for young PTMs in the UK construction industry, research on the UK ageism topic, in
particular the ‘ageing workforce’, tends to be in relation to the UK workforce in a general sense;
McGoldrick and Arrowsmith (2017) state that ageism and age discrimination in UK organisations can
take place through, for example, encouraging or selecting older workers to leave the workforce to
relieve downsizing pressure, and that they add an additional problem to employers (and the public) with
their salary requirements. And, as Parry and Tyson (2009) find, organisations tend to have negative
attitudes towards changes in legislation, finding it difficult to adapt, regardless of the fact that “[t]he
UK has had a ban on age discrimination in employment since 2006” (Women and Equalities
Committee, 2018). Abrams et al. (2011) also note that older people are perceived to be a burden on the
healthcare system (p.13); in a workplace context, this could refer to requiring treatment to carry on
working, whereby younger generations do not demand such treatment.
Aside from the differences in how researchers interpret the definition of ageism, the question now is
how can it affect young people? Snape and Redman (2003) discuss the impacts of perceived age
discrimination, which not only found that young people feel the impacts of age discrimination, but that,
from their sample, the perceived impacts towards young people were “at least as widespread” as those
towards old people (p.87). So this research concludes the fact that young people can be included within
the affected ageism groups. In terms of examples of age discrimination towards young people, Loretto
et al. (2000) explore the experiences and perceptions of business students regarding ageism; 35% of

their sample had experienced age-related discrimination. This came in the form of being seen as
untrustworthy, working for lower pay and being given less responsibility. This research is particularly
important, as very few focus on the specifics of how young people are impacted by their age. In later
research, Duncan and Loretto (2004) find that ageism, which was highest with younger and older age
groups, affected their 16-24-year-old participants most commonly through pay/benefits, negative
attitudes, promotions, restricted job deployment and youthful appearance, and affected their 45-year-
old and above participants most commonly through being too old for promotion, reduced training
opportunities, negative attitudes and redundancy (p.105).
As is evident with the abundance of examples given, the primary focus of ageism is the effects towards
older people. These three papers therefore shed light on an important issue that is not commonly spoke
about, which aids the fight for recognition of ageism of young people. However, it is discouraging to
know that these papers, being 17, 20 and 16 years old respectively, are indicative that ageism towards
young people remains an issue, since, as mentioned, very few researchers recognise this concept.
Some researchers tend to find relation between ageism and other discriminatory variables. For example,
Drydakis et al. (2018) examines its relation to race in the UK workforce finding that, where older
workers “have lower access to vacancies and sorting in lower-paid jobs” (p.1), being a racial minority
only worsens this issue. Additionally, Duncan and Loretto (2004) investigate the combined effects of
age and gender discrimination in the UK workplace, or as they put it, ‘gendered ageism’; these were
found to have a correlation as well, with the results indicating that women suffered from ageism more
than men across all ages. It is clear that there can be a benefit of looking at age and other discriminatory
variables; for example, where Duncan and Loretto (2004) focus on how gender has an effect on ageism,
this can be turned around by examining how age has an effect on gender discrimination and sexism.
Additionally, as Ainsworth (2002) notes with regards to gender and age, “there is much to be gained
from looking at their combined influence” (p.580).
2.1.5 Workforce integration and development of young PTMs
This section focuses on the integration methods that are employed in UK workplace to integrate and
develop young people. The author initially aimed to focus on a project team environment i.e. in the
construction industry, however the lack in research in this specific area has restricted the ability to do
so. Therefore, this section also includes research of integration and development methods across the
workforce, including international examples.

The term ‘integration’ is not commonly used by many in the way the author uses it; ‘inclusion’ is a
similar term that is generally common amongst researchers, which is a broader term used to describe
managing diversity. For example, Farndale et al. (2015) examined diversity and inclusion in the
workplace in a global context whereby they analysed research from global perspectives; as proof of the
importance that inclusion is a key consideration for organisations, they concluded that “diversity and
inclusion practices have been shown to link to significant performance outcomes” (pp.685-686).
Elsewhere, van der Velden and Wolbers (2003), who examine the unemployment and temporary
employment of young people in the labour market, look at integration into the labour market where
their context of the term ‘integration’ refers to the physical transition from student to work, i.e.
recruitment. However, the author uses integration in the sense of developing people in (specifically) the
project environment.
Specific to civil engineering / construction, the literature is scarce. However, one key guide by Russell
(2002) provides information for use by employers in reference to hiring and retaining civil engineers.
One notable piece of advice from his research is that young PTMs are more inclined to enjoy their
environment and be retained by companies if they are “constantly learning new skills that give them
depth” (p.10). Another fundamental way of retaining civil engineers, he says, is to keep them challenged
and given new temporary tasks; “[c]hances are, a challenging assignment that involves something new
and innovative will get you out of bed in the morning” (Russell, 2002, pp.10-11). Other areas that
Russell (2002) states must be adhered to in order to retain civil engineers are: ensure an open,
communicative atmosphere (p.12); welcoming and socially inclusive, at work and outside of work
(p.14, 16, 33); recognition of good work and rewarding with increased responsibility (p.14). One last
area that he stresses is mentoring; he outlines the plethora of benefits that mentoring has to offer, which
benefits both the young PTM in question and the mentor (Russell, 2002, pp.35-37). Thus, for the
author’s research, Russell’s (2002) work is vitally important, since this is comparable with the vast
majority of the author’s results. However, although these points listed are helpful, they lack the specific,
implementable tasks that can be introduced at a project team level, which the author aims to find.
Therefore this gap in knowledge is still apparent.
Mazerolle et al.’s (2012) study is particularly relevant to the author’s, in that this considers gender
discrimination, gender roles and mentoring. They studied female athletics trainers who were subjected
to gender discrimination and gender roles, finding that the ways of reducing said occurrences was to be
more assertive with their coaches early on, for their coaches to be more supportive and to seek
mentorship (Mazerolle et al., 2012). Whilst this study was in relation to reducing workplace gender
bias, this is once again interchangeable with increasing integration and development; the fundamental
factors they identify are mentorship, communication and supervisor support (p.697), and there is no
reason as to why these cannot apply to young PTMs. If it has been proven to work in Mazerolle et al.’s

(2012) research, the only barrier that is likely to be present in the UK construction industry is
masculinity, however the masculine perceptions are more so at an operative level, as Iacuone (2005)
examined. These three fundamental factors are likely to be provided by those in a managerial and
supervisorial level.
Once again referring Sang’s (2007) findings that young peoples’ lack of experience left them open to
discrimination by operatives on site, it is evident that it is not only important to employ more effective
integration practices to aid development of young people, but that there must be disciplinary action
taken if repeated instances of on-site discrimination from operatives leaves young PTMs feeling too
uncomfortable to learn on-site. This should be enforced by PMs to avoid these circumstances in an
effort to ensure young PTMs’ job satisfaction and development. This type of discrimination is further
evidenced by Duncan and Loretto (2004), which offers support in the fact that young people can be
discriminated on the grounds of their gender and age.
Chen et al. (2014) studied how medical students could benefit from being given workplace roles on top
of their curriculum. They found that this brought a vast array of benefits to the students, and provided
something that they could not conduct in their respective institutions. This is a particularly important
piece of literature in the context of integration and development practices, since this research provides
the clear benefits of students engaging in activities early on. Putting this into the context of a PTM in
the UK construction industry, the same can be said for industrial placement students or graduates in a
project team, where workplace activities can be given to utilise early engagement and therefore faster
integration and development. Furthermore, Smith et al.’s (1994) research aimed to identify the actual
relationships between team demography, team process and organisational performance, and the roles
that social integration and communication played within these elements. They found that, whilst some
of their hypotheses were inconclusive, teams with increased social integration directly correlated with
a higher level of performance; they theorised that, “[p]resumably, top management teams that work
well together react faster, are more flexible, use superior problem solving techniques, and are more
productive and efficient than less integrative teams” (Smith et al., 1994, p.432). These two pieces of
research are therefore instrumental in support of diversity and employing better integrative tactics to
increase the knowledge of young PTMs and maximise performance.
Wong et al.’s (2008) research examined the generational differences in personality and motivation.
Their research, whilst not explicitly focused on integration and development, did provide an interesting
conclusive remark that defies the idea that younger people are less driven than older people, whilst also
linking age with integration; “[t]he research emphasi[s]es the importance of managing individuals by
focusing on individual differences rather than relying on generational stereotypes” (p.878).
Additionally, Fuller and Unwin’s (2004) work brings forward the theory that status and experience are

not directly correlated with level of expertise. They conclude that increasing development of individuals
within an organisation is determined largely by “the way work is organised and skills are distributed”
(p.40). This therefore supports their original hypothesis, and that an effective way of developing
someone is to ensure they are getting the right support through assigning tasks.
2.2 Identifying the gap
Ultimately, it is clear from the reviewed literature that the construction industry is dominated by middle-
aged white men; because of this, the predominantly male environment will be difficult to immediately
shift. However, as suggested by Baxter and Wallace (2009), for instance, where the female minority
form as an ‘out-group’, this can threaten the white male majority. Essentially, increasing the recognition
of these out-groups has the potential to change the structure of the industry and draw in more out-group
members. With this in mind, much of the research that has been conducted on gender discrimination
and diversity has been beneficial in terms of bringing to light the effects of masculinity (Rumens, 2013;
Chan, 2013). It makes sense for researchers, amongst many people with knowledge or experience of
these issues, to find that gender discrimination and sexism is still commonplace, however this research
is not beneficial in helping the cause by merely concluding that this male majority is the problem (Chan,
2013) and is unnecessary if nothing is being done to maintain young women entering the UK
construction industry through creating a more inclusive environment for them (Dainty et al., 2000;
2004). The author therefore hypothesises H1:
H1: The UK construction industry remains to be lacking in both knowledge and importance
of sexism / gender discrimination / gender roles; PMs across the industry do not take
active measures in the project environment to ensure young female and male PTMs get
the right support in this area, and therefore inclusion and a non-discriminatory
environment continue to be absent.
Whilst some of the research conducted on an ageism has identified older workers as a minority in the
form of ageism (e.g. Sargeant, 2011; Bytheway, 2005), others include young people in the bracket of
ageism (e.g. Angouri, 2012). The UK construction industry typically focuses on ageing workforce with
regards to age-based topics (e.g. Taylor and Walker, 1994; McGoldrick and Arrowsmith, 2007), leaving
a gap in knowledge as to the effects on young PTMs, although Sang’s (2007) research proves that young
people in general are open to the effects of age discrimination irrespective of gender. Snape and Redman
(2003) and Loretto et al. (2000) help in bringing this subject to recognition, with their research finding
that age discrimination towards young people is commonplace. So considering these two pieces of
research in particular, and the suggestion from Ainsworth (2002) that looking at gender as well as age
is very beneficial (p.580), H2 is produced:

H2: Although in some cases at an advantage due to their age, a lack of knowledge in this
area means that young PTMs in the UK construction industry remain to suffer from the
effects of ageism and therefore have their development impacted; these impacts largely
stem from the masculine environment of the industry.
Rumens (2013) recognises that masculinity is a concept that many men in the UK construction industry
are not able to conform to, thereby identifying a minority in the male demographic. Furthermore, it is
very important to consider Chan’s (2013) hypothesis that of promoting equal opportunities and effects
on men and women, Also, with the knowledge that the majority of the workforce is dominated by
middle-aged men (Office for National Statistics, 2019), a minority is present on each end of the age
demographic i.e. older and younger men. As mentioned previously, studies have been conducted to
investigate the concept of ageism, which has a focus towards older workers with regards to their limited
skillset and salary requirements, but there is little focus towards younger men; this is likely due to the
fact that young men have a skillset that may favour the current industry advances (e.g. BIM) and that
they do not require a particularly large salary. Due to the lack of attention towards young men and the
discriminatory effects they may experience, the author hypothesises H3:
H3: Young men entering the industry face discrimination from older, more experienced men
as a result of the combined effects of gender roles (i.e. masculinity) and age
discrimination concepts, even if said men are not a great deal older or more
experienced.
In terms of integration, there are limited studies that relate to how young PTMs can develop when they
begin their new roles. The key research by Russell (2005), however, does heavily aid this limited
literature, since his work provides a respectable list of general solutions to ensuring young civil
engineers are maintained by employers. Some other researchers (Mazerolle et al., 2012; Chen et al.,
2014) explore how development methods, e.g. mentoring and activities, could be improved in certain
workplace scenarios, and they stress the importance of doing so early on. However, there is a lack of
attention towards the UK construction industry on this topic, and, knowing that the masculine
environment can affect both men and women (Rumens, 2013; Sang, 2007), this is not a particularly
reassuring thought for either gender. Also, research suggests that, for women, support from others
(specifically male colleagues) aids job satisfaction levels and the ability to develop (Dainty et al., 2004;
Worrall et al., 2011). Furthermore, Smith et al.’s (1994) was also extremely helpful in supporting
integration, providing the analysis that teams who utilise methods of social integration heightened
performance all round. In the context of the UK construction industry then, it would make sense that
these lessons can also apply to young women and young men who are struggling to integrate and
develop in their first few days, weeks, months, or even years, of beginning their journey in the industry.
Therefore, the author hypothesises H4:

H4: Whilst some effective practices are employed, non-effective ones are present; PMs and
other PTMs do not adequately focus on developing and valuing young PTMs, and often
waste their talent by delegating unhelpful/unfulfilling tasks.

3 Research design methodology
This section outlines the research design methodology, entailing the research strategy, research
methods/instruments used (which includes methods of data collection & analysis) and ethical
considerations of the author’s research project.
3.1 Research strategy
This research employs a qualitative approach for collecting and analysing the data. As outlined in more
detail in the following sections, particularly Section 3.3 and 3.4, qualitative methods focus on what
people have to say as opposed to using/contributing statistical data; Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28) detail
the strategic focus of qualitative research, as outlined in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Qualitative research strategy: adapted from Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28)
Orientation Qualitative research Meaning

Principal Inductive Contribution to the generation of theories.
Epistemological Interpretivism Rejects the practices and norms of the natural
scientific model.
Ontological Constructionism Embodies a view of a social reality as a
constantly shifting emerging property of
individuals’ creation.
The reason a qualitative approach has been utilised is due to the type of data required by the author; the
purpose of this study relates to how young PTMs are impacted by the various themes, not what they are
impacted by. If this research were based on the latter, quantitative data collection and analysis methods
would have been used, for example through a survey questionnaire for data collection and then a
graphical representation of the trends etc. Contrary to Table 3.1, therefore, Table 3.2 comprises the
different aspects of quantitative research.
Table 3.2 Quantitative research strategy: adapted from Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28)
Orientation Quantitative research Meaning

Principal Deductive Testing of theories.
Epistemological Positivism Incorporates the practices and norms of the
natural scientific model.
Ontological Objectivism Embodies a view of social reality as an external,
objective reality.

As indicated in Table 3.2, the quantitative research strategy takes a more objective approach through
its testing, and use, of current knowledge to produce statistical data. The author, however, wishes to
contribute to research in this area since he perceives current practices to be inadequate; this calls for
qualitative research.
3.2 Research process
In order to visualise how the author has structured the research, Figure 3.1 illustrates an overview of
the steps taken to conduct the research. Further information regarding the justification of some of the
activities involved in the research process can be found in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
Review of literature
Initial formulation of
research questions
Research questions
revised and finalised
Selection of subjects
Pilot interviews
(sampling)
Collection of data
(main interviews)
Analysis of data
(thematic analysis)
Write up of results/
discussion/conclusion
Figure 3.1 Full research design process: adapted from

Bryman and Bell (2007)
By way of a brief explanation of the activity format/ordering in Figure 3.1, the pilot interview utilises
an iterative process; essentially, once the research questions were revised and finalised, the sample was
confirmed and contacted, then the pilot interviews took place. Upon completion of these pilot
interviews, the interview questions were refined based on the answers to the pilot study. After this, the
main sample was confirmed and contacted, before conducting the main interviews.

3.3 Data collection methods
This section includes the instrument used to collect data as well as the particular sample that the
interview has been conducted to.
3.3.1 Interview type
The three most common forms of research interviews are structured, unstructured and semi-structured.
Structured interviews are the “typical form of interview in social survey [i.e. quantitative] research”
and both the interviewer’s questions and interviewees’ answers are delivered in such a way that data is
able to be analysed quantitively, i.e. the questions are either “closed, closed ended, pre-coded, or fixed
choice” (Bryman and Bell, 2007, p.210). Structured interviews are the only main form of quantitative
interview.
Unstructured interviews are, as implied in the name, the opposite of structured interviews, whereby the
interview may ask just a single question that the interviewee is allowed to respond freely to, “with the
interviewer simply responding to points that seem worthy of being followed up” (Bryman and Bell,
2007, p.474). This places unstructured interviews under qualitative data collection. Finally, semi-
structured interviews; these are the second form of qualitative data collection, whereby a structure
remains within the interview in that, almost always, all questions on the interviewers ‘interview guide’
will be asked, but there is freedom to follow up the interviewees responses with questions not present
on the interview guide, giving the interviewee “a great deal of leeway in how to reply” (Bryman and
Bell, 2007, p.474). Based on these definitions, semi-structured interviews was the author’s preferred
choice, since the author wished to cover all the topics he has identified as problem areas but wished that
responses vary in order to maximise the number of themes; this then allowed for a more reliable and
detailed discussion.
3.3.2 Sample
The sample that the author used was split into two phases – one for the pilot interview and one for the
main interview (see Fig. 3.1). Both phases were sampled through purposive sampling (AKA
‘purposeful’ sampling), whereby “participants are selected according to predetermined criteria
relevant to a particular research objective” (Guest et al., 2006, p.61). The author deemed this most
suitable to the research, since the aim specifies the effects on young and inexperienced PTMs; more
specifically, this was between 16-25 years old with 2 years or less experience i.e. placement and
graduate engineers. This particularly young sample group was also chosen due to the fact that they will

remember their experiences better than someone who has been working for a larger number of years on
various different project(s).
For the pilot interview, the author conducted interviews with two people; one male and one female. As
found by Majid et al. (2017), a pilot interview with two people who fit their proposed sample was
conducted; this gave them sufficient information to improve both their sample selection and the
interview questions. This was useful to determine a suitable number, so although this project considers
both male and female PTMs (which will give different answers), two people will be sufficient as
opposed to two from each gender; this allowed for adequate improvement to the interview sample and
questions. For the main interview, the author used 8 participants (4 women and 4 men) who were from
7 different large contracting. This number of interviews was affected by time constraints; the author
would have preferred more to increase the reliability of the data.
3.4 Data analysis methods
For data analysis, the method used was thematical analysis. This is a common tool of qualitative data
analysis where interviews are used. Woodall (2016) provides a useful video presentation of his
experience with coding, whereby passages of text from his interview transcripts were highlighted in a
certain colour to emphasise this as a key piece of information. Brief annotations along the side of the
text were then formulated to outline a key theme, and these were then developed into even larger
themes. A useful concept of coding was brought to recognition by Attride-Stirling (2001), who created
the ‘thematic network’ (Fig. 3.2); this technique collates ‘basic themes’ into an ‘organising theme’, and
these ‘organising themes’ are collated into a ‘global theme’. The author therefore used these methods
to collate the themes that arose from the interviews.

Figure 3.2 "Structure of a thematic network" (Attride-Stirling, 2001)
3.5 Research ethics
Research ethics is a key area to consider, particularly when conducting qualitative data analysis.
Bryman and Bell (2007) recognise the two general questions posed by ethical concerns, which are:
“[h]ow should we treat the people on whom we conduct research?” and “[a]re there activities in which
we should or should not engage in our relations with them?” (p.127). The author’s ‘Ethics form’ can
be found in Appendix A. The following headings are derived from Diener and Crandall’s (1978, cited
in Bryman and Bell, 2007) work.
Harm to participants
Under Diener and Crandall’s (1978, cited in Bryman and Bell, 2007, p.133) criteria of ‘harm’, i.e.
“physical harm; harm to participants’ development or self-esteem; stress; harm to career prospects or
future employment; and ‘inducing subjects to perform reprehensible acts’,” this research posed no harm
to the participants. As outlined on the author’s ‘Informed consent form’ (see Appendix B) and
‘Interview information sheet’ (see Appendix C), the participants had no form of harm imposed upon
them. The data collection was a relaxed, semi-structured interview whereby the participants were asked
questions on their experiences in the workplace with regards to gender discrimination or gender roles,
age discrimination and their integration into the project environment. There was no intent from the
author to cause the participant stress or harm to their development or career, and the participants have
remained completely anonymous in the research project aside from basic information i.e. gender, age
and time spent in role (see Appendix E). Furthermore, once the author had transcribed the tapes (making

sure to note the participant under e.g. ‘Participant A’) they were destroyed as to guarantee anonymity.
Although the questions are based on discrimination, the author is did not discuss any deep feelings the
participant may have, but merely identified and discussed the challenges they have faced. Should the
participant have felt difficult or uncomfortable answering certain questions, the author accommodated
by moving onto the next question. If necessary, the author would have taken a break or stopped if
completely necessary, however these circumstances did not occur.
Lack of informed consent
The next issue of ethics is a lack of informed consent. The author ensured that this issue was resolved
prior to the interview; the participant was to sign and return the ‘Informed consent form’ (see Appendix
B), outlining a confirmation that they understood their role in the research, and read the ‘Interview
information sheet’ (see Appendix C), explaining what the interview involved and how the data was
used, which are both derived from official University of Leeds documentation to ensure all concerns
were covered.
Invasion of privacy
This next issue concerns invasion of the participants’ privacy. Bryman and Bell (2007) note how,
although the interview was private and anonymity is ensured, sometimes the participant may feel that
a particular question is aiming to “delve into private realms or cover topics that they may find
sensitive…” (p.140). As previously mentioned, however, the author accommodated where this occurred.
The participant’s privacy is guaranteed by the author, whereby the ‘Informed consent form’ (see
Appendix B) ensured the participant understood the confidentiality of the interviews and that their
involvement was voluntary.
Deception
The last key area of ethical considerations is deception, which Bryman and Bell (2007) define as when
“researchers represent their research as something other than what it is” (p.141). They also recognise
that, in order to receive more natural answers, a certain degree of deception is likely to be common,
whereby the researcher gives the participant little information about the research (Bryman and Bell,
2007, p.142). In order to avoid deception, therefore, the participant may be told more detail at the end
of the interview; if they then wish to have a certain part of the recording deleted, this must also be
accommodated (Bryman and Bell, 2007, p.142), however the author would have once again reassured
them that their confidentiality was guaranteed in order to prevent this circumstance.

3.6 Interview questions justifications
The majority of the interview questions (see Appendix D) have been created by the author (see Table
3.3); this is largely due to the insufficient knowledge of integration methods for young PTMs. Mazerolle
et al. (2012) does however provide a good set of semi-structured interview questions related to gender
that have been adapted to suit the author’s topic area.
Table 3.3 Origin of the interview questions
Question number(s) Origin

2, 5, 7–11 The author
1, 3, 4, 6 Adapted from Mazerolle et al. (2012)
With regards to the number of questions and the length of the interviews, the author argues that,
although 11 questions may edge into the larger range of semi-structured interview schedule sizes, the
answers to said questions were expected to be answered in a relatively short time frame, for various
reasons. Firstly, the questions are designed in such a way that the interviewee knew exactly what to
discuss. Secondly, the author ensured that, should the interviewee have gone into enough detail, they
were told so (which was also made clear at the beginning of the interview). Finally, this interview was
carried out to young PTMs regarding their first period of time when starting work, therefore the answers
were not anticipated to be a lengthy recap of their time up to the point of the interview.
With regards to the length of the three sections, Part A (age) is brief; this is because there was little
research on age discrimination towards younger people, and so further, more specific questions would
not be developing upon the body of knowledge but more so exploring a new area entirely. Part B
(gender) however does have a variety of questions, since gender has been more commonly explored
and is, in the construction industry, evidently a more pressing issue than age. It therefore develops on
the body of knowledge.
3.7 Research methodology summary
By way of summarising the information in Section 3, concerning the research design, Table 3.4 has
been created. This details the research objectives (see Section 1.4), the method through which the
objective is met and the how the method meets the objective.

Table 3.4 Research design summary of how the objectives are met
Objective Research method Criteria to meet objective

1 Develop understanding of the key Literature review Researched existing literature surrounding the general
workforce discrimination areas, elements of discrimination.
in the UK workforce and in the
UK construction industry.
2 Understand sexism, gender Literature review Researched existing literature surrounding gender roles
discrimination and gender roles and gender discrimination, towards both men and
in the UK construction industry. women, in the UK construction industry.
3 Understand age discrimination in Literature review Researched existing literature surrounding age
the UK construction industry. discrimination and ageism in the UK construction
industry.
4 Investigate how gender roles & Literature review Put the existing literature of Objectives 2 and 3 in the
gender discrimination and age context of young, inexperienced PTMs.
discrimination affect young,
Data collection Interview questions: 1–6
inexperienced project team
Data analysis Analysed the collected data to find common themes
members (PTMs).
between the interviewees’ answers.
5 Investigate how current methods Literature review Researched existing literature surrounding any current
of integration affect the integration methods, how commonly these were actually
development of young, employed and how inadequate integration standards
inexperienced PTMs in the affected the development of young PTMs.
project environment. Data collection Interview questions: 4, 6–10
Data analysis Analysed the collected data to find common themes
between the interviewees’ answers.
6 Develop procedures and provide Discussion & Discussed the themes and recommendations of the
guidance for better integration of Recommendations interviewed PTMs, in order to determine if the current
young PTMs for project methods were up to standard (as per the interviewees’
managers (PMs). answers) and made justified recommendations of how
integration, gender roles/discrimination and age
discrimination could be improved/mitigated.
Furthermore, it was necessary to align the hypotheses devised in Section 2.2 with the proposed research
method used; for hypotheses, it is only possible to test their validity through assessing their relationship
with the collected data. Therefore, they have been aligned with the research questions they correspond
to / are answered in, as shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Hypotheses relation to research questions
Hypothesis Research questions

H1 The UK construction industry remains to be lacking in both knowledge and importance of 2–6
sexism / gender discrimination / gender roles; PMs across the industry do not take active
measures in the project environment to ensure young female and male PTMs get the right
support in this area, and therefore inclusion and a non-discriminatory environment continue
to be absent.
H2 Although in some cases at an advantage due to their age, a lack of knowledge in this area 1
means that young PTMs in the UK construction industry remain to suffer from the effects of
ageism and therefore have their development impacted; these impacts largely stem from the
masculine environment of the industry.
H3 Young men entering the industry face discrimination from older, more experienced men as a 1, 2–4
result of the combined effects of gender roles (i.e. masculinity) and age discrimination
concepts, even if said men are not a great deal older or more experienced.
H4 Whilst some effective practices are employed, non-effective ones are present; PMs and other 7–9
PTMs do not adequately focus on developing and valuing young PTMs, and often waste their
talent by delegating unhelpful/unfulfilling tasks.

4 Results
This results section is split into 3 parts – age, gender and integration – as on the interview schedule.
Themes have been created and are headings within each section. Some of the less common themes have
not been discussed within these results as to keep a focus on the most common ones. Also, for the sake
of clarity, the letters in italics within each thematic network diagram are the male participants.
4.1 Age
The first section of the results is based on the experiences the participants had with regards to their age.
These have been split into two categories, since the questions asked gave an opportunity to share their
positive views on being a young PTM as well as the challenges they’ve faced.
4.1.1 Challenges of being a young PTM
Lack of integration
The first (global) theme to discuss that arose within the age section of the interviews was a lack of
integration. In general, participants felt as though they had trouble when trying to integrate, and as a
result this prolonged the overall integration process and therefore value to the team. This was felt by 7
of the 8 participants.

Commanding authority/respect Lack of empathy

(E, F) (A)
Being heard Lack of respect Negative perception

(G, H) (B) (D, G) (B, E, F)
Lack of
integration
Lack of support First impressions important
(A, G, H) (B, E)
Lack of support
Lack of female colleagues

Lack of trust
(A)
(E) Demotivating
(F)
Figure 4.1 Lack of integration thematic network
Lack of respect
The lack of integration global theme can be split into two organising themes, the first of which is a lack
of respect. The first theme, ‘negative perception’, was highlighted by 5 of the 8 participants –
Participants D, G (both female), B, E and F (male) – all of whom broadly agree that members of the
team, more specifically the operatives, had this instant negative perception due to age. For example,
Participant G states the following: “there’s an attitude that you’re almost like the young work
experience kid and you're not really competent … as time develops you feel a bit limited because of
your age, because people assume that you’re not as good when actually you’re probably as good as
other people but they’re just older than you.” Participant D does however add an additional point,
outlining why, in her opinion, older members have this view: “…I think people think the reason why
they treat you a certain way to begin with is I think they all think you’re going to come in and think
“I’ve gone to University, I’ve had an education, I know everything,”.”
Similarly to the negative perception, another theme, ‘being heard’, explains the participants’ inability
to have their ideas heard or generally have much of a presence in the office and on site. This was

generally agreed by 1 female (G) and 1 male participant (B), however Participant G focuses on
physically being heard, stating the following: “If I suggested something, I mean I’m not the loudest
person anyway, but sometimes you get overlooked just because they assume that you’re not right even
if you could be. Sometimes I’d say something and then someone else would say it again and then it
would get noticed because they’d said it louder …” Conversely, Participant B mentions that others did
not respect the fact that he had knowledge.
Lack of support
The next organising theme to discuss is ‘lack of support’. Despite being an organising theme, the ‘lack
of support’ initially arose as its own theme, made aware by Participants A, G and H. Participant A states
the following: “…I felt like in both instances I was thrown into it quite quickly. I don't really know how
to explain it but basically, I didn't really have enough time to adapt, I was just expected to know a lot
of things *chuckles* which I didn’t. So the beginning was quite overwhelming…” She goes on to
mention that she had a poor mentor, who was ineffective at both dedicating time to mentoring and the
act of showing her how to conduct certain tasks. Participant G outlines why this support is needed: “I
think it’s just good to get back up and it gives you self-confidence as well. Because when you first have
ideas you don't necessarily know if they’re good or not, but then you need the feedback to know whether
it’s good or not.”

Male-dominated impacts
Old (male) workforce

(A, G) (E, F)
Middle-aged men
(Male) operatives
(B, E)
(D, H) (B)
Male workforce
Male-dominated
impacts
‘Masculine’
Intimidating characteristics Masculine behaviour
(H) (G)
Less educated (men)

(E)
Figure 4.2 Male-dominated impacts thematic network
Male workforce
The first of the two organising themes to be explored within the ‘male-dominated impacts’ global theme
is ‘male workforce’. Firstly, 4 participants – A, G, E and F – noted the ‘old (male) workforce’ as causing
particular problems in regard to age. Participant A describes her negative experiences with the older
end of the workforce age spectrum, stating the following: “…I definitely feel like a lot of the older
people, especially, not people in there 30s and 40s, but I mean the really old people *chuckles*, they’re
quite condescending and mean sometimes, which is not great … I just felt like they had a superiority
complex, and a lot of the time I felt like the way they talked to me would be quite rude.” Additionally,
responses from Participants E and F agreed with this category of the older workforce, noting late-
40s/early-50s plus as those older members who caused issues. Participant F further states: “They weren’t
very enthusiastic, let’s just put it that way *chuckles*.”
The ‘(male) operatives’ were another group of the male workforce that became apparent as a result of
the interviews. Participants D, H and B noted this, however Participants D and H did not recall any

specific instances that stood out with regards to the male operatives. Participant B, however, stated the
following: “the guys that do the actual work on site, I would be working with them, and they might be
relying on some of the engineering I'm doing, and they might be a bit negative about me or be a bit
impatient, and it’s almost as if the attitude begun with the impatience because they already know that
I'm young so they're already being a bit harder on me.” This echoes the previous theme, ‘negative
perception’, since the operatives had the preconceived attitude of being impatient with a young PTM.
Project dependent
Poorly managed project Project Project size

(A) (A, H)
dependent
Figure 4.3 Project dependent thematic network
4.1.2 Positive experiences of being a young PTM
This section details the positive experiences the participants have had by being a young PTM. This is
split into 2 key global themes; ‘supportive team’ and ‘personal development’.
Supportive team
The first global theme of this section, ‘supportive team’, details how the team focused on both inclusion
and development of the young PTMs, which lead to some positive experiences.

Diverse workforce Supportive female/male colleagues

(A) (A, H) (B, F)
Individually inclusive Mainly positive

Inclusion
(G) (G) (C)
focused
Welcoming Young workforce

(A, H) (C) (A, G) (C)
Supportive
team
Development
focused
Given many tasks

Shadowing
(E) Mentoring (B)
(D, H)
Figure 4.4 Supportive team thematic network
Inclusion focused
For the most common theme amongst this ‘inclusion focused’ organising theme, an area that half of the
young PTMs – Participants A, H, B and F – agreed on was their ‘supportive female/male colleagues’.
Participant A’s first placement was positive, which she put down to having supportive female
colleagues, with them being a similar age adding to this: “… there was two placement students, me
another girl, and she had started a week earlier so when I went there on my first day I was just very
nervous but she helped me a lot which was great, so that was good because she was obviously the same
age as me and we stuck together for the whole time.” She also notes her other placement, where her
male manager “backed his team up” when defending the team to other project stakeholders.
Furthermore, Participant H states that her team “were giving you a lot of support to learn and to do the
things right.” Participant B also mentions those who were supporting him in comparison to those who
were not: “…a lot of them are really nice, and they’re actually trying to be nice, so it wasn't as negative
from them, they’re just looking out for me because I’m the new young guy.” A similarly linked theme

was that certain members were ‘individually inclusive’; Participant G states: “if you talk to them
individually they’re really nice,” when referring to how the operatives (mentioned previously) who
were “macho” in their group dynamic were nice on their own.
Another theme of that comes with an inclusion focused team is described by Participants A, H and C,
who talk about how the environment was ‘welcoming’. Participant A states the following in reference
to one of her placements: “It was a very friendly environment, and no one really expected me to know
everything, because whenever I don’t know something I feel silly asking, “oh no what if it’s a stupid
question,” but in my summer placement nobody felt like that. It was fine, I could just ask anything.”
Furthermore, Participant H also notes how, although the first couple of months of adapting to the new
environment were difficult, the team were welcoming: “… it was quite welcoming. I mean, they care
about me, and I work with them outside and they were explaining things to me. They wanted me to feel
comfortable…” Participant C, who overall had a very positive experience in terms of age, mentioned
that there was no hostility in the environment, “definitely not to do with age.” In addition to Participant
C, Participant G stated, “I think it’s mainly been positive,” and struggled to provide an example that
was negative. So with these examples relating to age being positive for both genders, it would once
again be unjustified to say that gender plays a part in having a more positive experience.
Participants A, G and C agreed that a ‘young workforce’ was key in helping them develop as part of
the project team. Participant A implies how the younger workforce are more empathetic than older
members: “Everyone… in my first job, was quite young, but even the oldest person I think which he was
a project manager and he was in his late 30s, he was just very understanding.” Furthermore, Participant
G states the following: “…the project manager’s almost 40 but it’s quite young for a project manager
I think. So it’s been good that everyone is in the same sort of mindset, and it’s a lot easier to work
together when you’re the same age … it’s a bit easier to chat to them as well. You don’t have as much
in common with the older guys *chuckles*” Participant C agrees with Participant G’s statement,
mentioning the following: “…in our office there was a good, out of maybe 80, 10 of them were under
30 so I managed to fit in quite well with them…” 2 female and 1 male participant agreeing on this shows
that a younger workforce can be helpful for both genders, due to easier integration.

Personal development
Less pressure
Commanding authority/respect (D, H) (B, C)
(D)
Gained trust/respect
(E, F)
Personal
Pushing yourself development
(G) Young advantage
(E, F)
Personality dependent
Easier with time
(E)
(E)
Figure 4.5 Personal development thematic network
The second global theme of the young PTMs experiences is ‘personal development’, essentially
detailing how integration can also rely on self-integration, as well as falling under the team’s
responsibilities. Firstly, half of the participants – D, H, B and C – spoke about how being younger meant
there was ‘less pressure’. Participant D states: “…people in a way expect you to have a lower level of
competency than you perhaps do. And it also means that you can ask stupid questions and no question
is a stupid question because you're not actually expected to know everything.” Additionally, Participant
H states: “They were not expecting as much, so they were trying to explain everything to you like you
were a child. So they were giving you a lot of support to learn and to do the things right. So it let some
pressure [off] me.” Participants B and C also state that they went into the role meeting everyone’s
expectations, meaning pressure was relieved. So 2 participants from both genders agreeing this could
indicate that this is once again not gender dependent.
A final, important theme that Participant E discusses, which can apply to any young PTM, is how the
level of personal development and integration is ‘personality dependent’. He states the following in
relation to being given tasks that might be considered as non-developing: “I feel like, unless you’re
willing to put yourself out there, you’re not as confidence, then the negative impacts of age can get you
more. But I feel personally, there was to an extent, as I say the main thing was not being able to develop
as an engineer, but on a personal level, I didn't feel the disadvantages because I feel like I was confident
enough to overcome it.” This is not necessarily a positive age impact, since personality is different

depending on the individual’s willingness to self-develop, however it is important to remember that it

is not all down to the project team’s ability to integrate.
4.2 Gender
The next section of the results is gender. This summarises and compares responses from the female and
male participants.
4.2.1 The pros and cons – different gender-based impacts to young PTMs
The first sub-section of gender summarises the challenges and positive experiences that all participants
had, separated into female and male.
FEMALE PARTICIPANTS
CHALLENGES
The challenges in this section are those specific to the women, either from the female participants
themselves or women in the participants’ responses, involved – Section 4.2.2 outlines those that relate
to both men and women.

Sexism and gender discrimination
Commanding authority/respect
(A, H) (E)
Sexism
Sexist remarks (A, D, H)
(A, D, H) (B, E) Sexism and gender
discrimination
Discouraged Gender discrimination

(H) Uncomfortable (F)
(H)
Figure 4.6 Sexism and gender discrimination thematic network
The first global theme of the gender challenges that women have faced is ‘sexism and gender
discrimination’. This is split straight into basic themes, the first of which is ‘sexist remarks’. As the
most common theme in this global theme, it was identified by 5 of the 8 participants – Participant A,
D, H, B and E – i.e. 3 female and 2 male. Each of these 5 participants have seen some form of sexist
remarks, but in slightly different ways. Participants B and E (the two men) witnessed derogatory
comments to women, and similarly Participant A noted that some people makes jokes about herself and
women, but that it did not particularly bother her. Contrarily, Participants D and H experienced had
more serious cases of sexist remarks: Participant D stated that she had a remark made that was so
discouraging that she did not wish to repeat it in the interview, and Participant H was victim to being
flirted with, which she also stated discouraged her.
A second theme revolving around sexism is ‘commanding authority/respect’. This was the joint second
most common theme for this global theme, with 2 female and 1 male participant noting this, Participants
A, H and E. All participants mean this in the same way, which related to not being taken seriously.
Participants A and E both state that they have witnessed instances where women have been unable to
command authority and respect from their peers, whereas Participant H has experienced it; Participant
E states the following: “[a women in] higher level management, she was never taken seriously, and I
feel like if she was male, she would have been taken seriously…” and Participant H states: “…it was
just […] that you knew they don't take you as serious because you're a woman and you're working on
site.”

‘Sexism’ was the other second most common theme within this theme. The author perceives
Participants A, D and H (3 women) to be linked to forms of sexism, i.e. being seen as less able due to
their sex, so this is closely linked to the two previous themes. Participant A’s experience is in the form
of her colleague being paid unequally to a male colleague of the same level, whilst Participant D notes
how one of the operatives had a backwards view of women working: “I had someone, one of the
operatives, that turned round to me and said “a woman’s place is in their home, you shouldn’t be here
you should be at home cleaning and cooking for your family…”.” Lastly, Participant H stated more or
less the definition of sexism, after detailing that being a young woman, she was seen as less able.
Male dominated impacts
Unconscious bias Unaccommodating

(D, G) (D, G)
Male ignorance Poor management
(D, G, H) (D) (F)
The historically
Non-supportive No female advantage
masculine environment
(F) (A)
Personal life priorities Intimidating

(C) (D)
Male dominated
impacts
Old workforce Unhelpful Negative role models

(A, D) workforce (D)
Meeting quotas not competence Lack of female support

(D) (F)
Figure 4.7 Male dominated impacts thematic network

The historically masculine environment
The next global theme of the women’s challenges is ‘male dominated impacts’. This is split into two
organising themes, ‘the historically masculine environment’ and ‘unhelpful workforce’. The first theme
of ‘the historically masculine environment’ is male ignorance; this was noticed by 3 female participants
– D, G and H. Participant D and G focus more on the fact that men do not think about their actions due
to them being used to their environment; essentially they are less aware, as Participant G recounted that
some men get changed in the office without realising they are in a female presence. Participant D
however recalls a time in which she asked for help with her university studies, and this was ignorantly
assumed by the man in question – and his colleagues – that it was more of a ‘date’ scenario as opposed
to meeting after work simply to discuss her university project.
Another two themes derived from Participants D and G (both women) were ‘unconscious bias’ and
‘unaccommodating’. For ‘unconscious bias’, Participant D acknowledged the term within her
responses, once stating the following: “…I think something that goes unnoticed is the unconscious bias,
and that's what, in a way, I think a lot of people overlook and think “it’s fine, it’s nothing,” but when it
occurs daily, it’s more grinding.” She also mentions how documentation specifically referred to
instructions for ‘him’, ‘himself’ and ‘his’ in reference to engineers. Also, Participant G stated that she
was assumed to be a receptionist on one occasion. For the ‘unaccommodating’ theme, Participant D
states how the women’s toilets were initially hard to find, and Participant G notes how there were not
any female changing rooms, and so she had to use the toilets instead.

POSITIVE EXPERIENCES
Supportive team
Obvious incidents well-handled

(D)
Supportive male colleagues Supportive female colleagues

Supportive
(A, D, G) (A)
Supportive team
Inclusive Equal
Respectful
(G) (C) (A)
No sexist remarks Educated men respectful

(G) (H)
Figure 4.8 Supportive team thematic network
Supportive
For the positive experiences had by the female participants with regards to their gender, the first global
theme is ‘supportive team’. This has then been split into two organising themes that sum up this concept;
‘supportive’ and ‘respectful’. For the first theme of ‘supportive’, female Participants A, D and G note
their ‘supportive male colleagues’. Participant A and D agreed on how their male colleagues supported
them in situations where they encouraged them, and Participant G notes how her male colleagues helped
her carry site equipment. Another theme, ‘supportive female colleagues’, is based on Participant A’s
response, who notes how one of her placements was very diverse in terms of a large number of young,
female colleagues; she stated that this was good for support and integration purposes due to them being
of a similar profile to her. A final basic theme within this global theme is based on Participant D’s

response, ‘obvious incidents well-handled’; this refers to instances she experienced where the team
handled the more obvious examples of sexism in a good way, taking appropriate action.
Female awareness/advantage Personality dependent

(D) (E) (D, G)
Personality
Easier with time dependent Change the industry
(D) (D)
Commanding authority/respect
(D)
Figure 4.9 Personality dependent thematic network
MALE PARTICIPANTS
CHALLENGES
The challenges in this section are those specific to the men, either from the male participants themselves
or men’s in the participants’ responses, involved – Section 4.2.2 outlines those that relate to both men
and women.

Banter or bullying Non-masculine disadvantage

(E) (D, G) (C, E) (D, G, H)
Male dominated
impacts
Uncomfortable Masculinity conflicts

(E) (F)
Firstly, the ‘male dominated impacts’ global theme is something that affects male PTMs as well. The
first of the challenges that men have experienced – as per accounts from two male (C and E) and three
female (D, G and H) participants – is summarised as the ‘non-masculine disadvantage’. All five of these
participants broadly agree that it can be difficult for men to fit into this environment, particularly those
with a more diverse upbringing. Participant C and E both outlined times where a male colleague
suffered due to not meeting the “masculine” criteria. Participant E recounts a colleague that suffered
from this, which led to him being isolated by the site team and the office team: “he’d stand up and
they’d be like “oh no… go and see if [the female admin] needs anything doing.” So in that sense it was
probably pushing him towards a more stereotypically feminine role…” Participant E and D also
highlight the “man up” concept. Participant G recalled a case which involved this type of masculine
behaviour towards a middle-aged man, implying that this non-masculine disadvantage can affect all
men, regardless of age.
A theme related to this non-masculine disadvantage is the next theme, ‘banter or bullying?’. This was
created by the author upon similar instances from Participants E (male), D and G (both female). This
theme is similarly told by all three: Participants E and G recall the same examples as in the previous
paragraph, whereby the team members took the “banter” (commonly associated with this masculinity)
too far, to the point where it transitioned into bullying, whereas Participant D recognises that it is
difficult to draw the line with this masculine banter.

Personal dependences
Role dependent Personal Personality dependent

(C) dependences (C)
Figure 4.11 Personal dependences thematic network
The male advantage
Male advantage
(B, C, E, F) (A, H)
The male
advantage
Figure 4.12 The male advantage thematic network
Moving on to the positive experiences had by men, the first global theme is ‘the male advantage’.
Simply formed of one basic theme – ‘male advantage’ – this concerns the fact four male participants
involved, and views of two female participants, alluded to no challenges of being a man. All male
participants (B, C, E and F) were in full and strong agreement, highlighting that they managed to fit in
and saw no challenges themselves. For example, Participant E states: “…other than having to try and
combat or go against other males with [sexist views], because it makes me uneasy[,] I’d say that’s the
only challenge, feeling possibly out of place at times for not joining in. But that’s the only disadvantage,
but other than that, no challenges being male.” As for Participants A and H, when asked what
challenges men faced, they both struggled to give an answer and eventually stated that they could not
think of any challenges of being a man.

Inclusive team
Managerial women Encouraged

(B, C, F) (B)
Diversity
Inclusive team
Supportive
Inclusive Supportive colleagues
(C) (F)
Non-hostile in office
(F)
Figure 4.13 Inclusive team thematic network
Diversity
The second global theme, ‘inclusive team’, outlines men’s experiences with what gender-related
influences benefitted their inclusion. The first organising theme, ‘diversity’, concerns their female staff.
‘Managerial women’ is a theme partially agreed to have benefitted male participants B, C and F.
Participants C and F simply note how their projects had some women in management roles (which is
considered positive by the author due to the typically male management team), whereas Participant B
recognises this in relation to another theme, ‘encouraged’; he states the following: “I was quite
encouraged because there was a lot of women working in managerial positions, especially in the office-
based side of the site … which in turn is just better for everything really, in terms of decision making,
getting a vast range of opinions and ideas.”

(C)
Personality
dependent
4.2.2 Similar negative gender-based impacts to young PTMs
This section outlines the similar challenges both genders have faced.

Masculine behaviour Non-inclusive

(A, D, G, H) (C, E) (A, H) (E) (E) (H)
The historically
masculine environment
Male dominated
impacts
Male-dominated Non-diverse (Male) office workers

(D, H) (B, C, E, F) workforce (H) (E, F)
Operatives AKA “the lads” Women in non-engineering roles
(D, H) (C, E) (D, G, H) (C)
The historically masculine environment
This next section focuses on the gender-based impacts that were discussed by both genders – in Figure
4.15, the bold letters are towards men. The author has chosen to do this so that it is recognised how this
global theme, ‘male dominated impacts’, can affect both genders. The first organising theme, ‘the
historically masculine environment’, consists firstly of ‘masculine behaviour’. The key idea behind this
theme is simply that participants have witnessed or been victim to masculine behaviour on site and/or
in the office. This is deduced from all 4 female and 2 male (C and E) participants’ responses.
Participants A, D, E and H agreed that this had a negative effect, whereas Participants C and G
acknowledged this masculine behaviour but to a less impactful/concerning extent. For example,
Participant E states: “There’s a lot of masculinity/bravado in it, and then because there's so few female
colleagues, the moment there is one, I feel like it becomes that they’re over-sexualised, and then it's

almost like a competition of who can be the most masculine … So I think it’s toxic masculinity around
it.”
The next theme is ‘non-inclusive’. This is recognised by 3 participants, and it concerns how the way
this masculine environment ensues a non-inclusive atmosphere. Participants E and H recalled this with
reference to its effects on both genders, whereas Participant A describes it towards women, as she states:
“…we were told to do things that celebrate [the gender equality day] and a lot of the men, well everyone
in the office – there was only me and another woman, the site administrator – and everyone in the office
was just making fun of it, and they were just saying that it wasn’t that important.” Participant E
references his male colleague mentioned earlier under ‘non-masculine disadvantage’, and Participant
H describes a situation that affected a male and female couple: “[a woman] used to date one of the guys
that we worked with, and I think she just got picked on a lot – people were calling her a bitch and things
like that… It made her feel really bad, her motivation just dropped, and she [quit]… I think the guy the
same way – people didn’t like him that much so I think that's why both of them got pushed away a little
bit.”
Non-diverse workforce
The next organising theme is a ‘non-diverse workforce’; this describes how participants felt there was
a lack of women in their experiences. Firstly, 2 female (D and H) and all male participants mention how
it was the ‘male-dominated’ aspect affected them. All participants except Participant B strongly agreed
that it was a male-dominant environment, where participants generally stated between 85 to 95% men
in the office or that they were the only female engineer / only had one female colleague.. Participant B
however states the following: “…there was a lot of women working in managerial positions, especially
in the office-based side of the site. I guess that was encouraging because there’s always this idea that
construction is just for men…” Although it was unanimous between all participants that site workers
were almost entirely male.
Another theme that both genders recognised was ‘operatives AKA “the lads”’. This is in reference to
the site workers, referred to by some as “the lads” or “the guys,” who participants noted asserted their
masculinity on both women and men. The 2 female (D and H) and 2 male (C and E) participants strongly
agreed on this theme; for example, Participant E notes how “all the lads on site” caused problems for a
non-masculine male colleague, whilst Participant D notes that various operatives (mostly from
subcontractors) made severely discouraging, sexist remarks towards her. The next theme, ‘women in
non-engineering roles’, outlines how three female (D, G and H) and one male (C) participant broadly
agreed that the few women they worked with were mainly in non-engineering, more “secretary” roles,
such as administration, receptionist, health and safety and communication. Lastly, one female (H) and

two male (E and F) recounted how ‘male office workers’ caused problems for men and women, not just
operatives. In relation to his male colleague, Participant E states: “the engineering team and … sub
agents, construction managers, that sort of level. And then also, on site … foreman, groundworkers,
labour… just took the piss out of him all the time.”
4.2.3 Combatting gender challenges for young PTMs
WHAT ACTION HASN’T BEEN TAKEN?
Firstly, it is important to note that when asked whether or not their managers and peers understand the
importance of the impacts of gender challenges, 7 out of the 8 participants said they did not; three male
participants (B, E and F) and two female participants (D and G) agreed that it was generally not
understood to the full extent, whereas female participants A and H agreed that they did not understand
it at all.
Lack of effort
No gender solutions/sessions Non-effective measures
(A) (B, C, E, F) (G, H) (E, F)
Lack of
effort
No well-being focus Lack of empathy
(A) (A)
Figure 4.16 Lack of effort thematic network
The first global theme is ‘lack of effort’. Its most commonly mentioned theme, ‘no gender
solutions/sessions’, was highlighted by one female (A) and all male participants. This simply points out
that these participants have, as far as they were aware, not participated in any gender related sessions
or did not recall any memorable solutions. Adding to this theme, ‘non-effective measures’ outlines how
their managers’ attempts at resolving gender-based challenges had failed; Participants G (female), E
and F (male) agreed on a similar concept in that the training days and company policies are not
implemented in the office, whilst Participants H states in a more serious scenario that her female
colleague was not given adequate support by her manager when struggling to overcome gender
challenges caused by the rest of the team.

Male ignorance/environment
Lack of female colleagues

Unconscious bias (H) Masculine behaviour
(D, G) (A)
Male ignorance/
environment Upbringing dependent
Non-inclusive
(H) (B) (E)
Unaware of how to retain women

(B)
Figure 4.17 Male ignorance/environment thematic network
The next global theme, ‘male ignorance/environment’, outlines the fact that the male-dominated team
are unable to implement change. A theme that Participants B and H bring up is ‘non-inclusive’, referring
to how the men in the team would ignorantly make comments without consideration for the feelings of
others; Participant H outlines how her female colleague mentioned was being caused these problems
by the site and office team. Another theme, ‘unconscious bias’, is brought up again by female
Participants D and G in relation to the fact that, as put by Participant G, men do not “understand their
own prejudices…”, for which Participant D adds: “Everyone has it and that's why it’s so hard to stamp
out.” Participant E believes that this level of understanding is ‘upbringing dependent’, where those men
who are brought up and have been educated in non-diverse environments are more likely to cause these
problems.
WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN?
Contrary to the previous 7 participants, 6 out of the total 8 participants perceived that their team
understood the importance of gender challenges. This includes the female (D and G) and male (B, E
and F) participants from the previous section who agreed that it was understood to an extent, and also
includes Participant C who believes his team fully understood this.

Some hope in the industry
Understand need to encourage women

(B, C)
Supportive male colleagues Some resolution
(D) (G)
Some hope in
No sexist remarks Self-inclusion dependent
(G)
the industry (C)
Obvious incidents well-handled Upbringing dependent

(D) (E) (E)
Figure 4.18 Some hope in the industry thematic network
The only global theme for the actions that have been taken is ‘some hope in the industry’, titled due to
its associated basic themes implying positive changes, although these are all far from implying an all-
inclusive environment. Participants generally had different experiences of these positive changes, and
so most themes under this heading were individually derived. The first theme mirrors an earlier theme,
‘obvious incidents well-handled’, which Participant D and E agree on and describe in relation to the
more notable examples of sexist remarks. The next theme from Participants B and C’s responses once
again provide some hope in the industry, since they argue that their team members ‘understand the need
to encourage women’; Participant B states that this in addition to the fact that he does not believe they
know how to maintain women, whereas Participant C states that they understand why gender issues are
important. Some other themes include ‘supportive male colleagues’ as noted by Participant D. Lastly,
‘upbringing dependent’ readdresses Participant E’s earlier comment, in that those who have grown up
and progressed through a more diverse atmosphere understand the importance of gender challenges.
WHAT MEASURES SHOULD/CAN BE TAKEN?
This section focuses on what can be done to improve gender challenges. Some apply to both women
and men, whereas some apply more so to men, as they involve certain masculinity topics.

More supportive team
Inclusive workforce
(G) (B, C, F)
Support More More empathetic

(H) (F) (G)
inclusive
More supportive
Training team
Replace old-fashioned mindset
(D) (B, E)
(B)
More
Making everyone aware Meet competence not quotas
aware
(D, G) (F) (D)
Promoting non-masculine behaviour Understanding respect/authority

Better preparation
(B, C) (D)
(A)
Figure 4.19 More supportive team thematic network
More inclusive
The ‘more supportive team’ global theme begins with the ‘more inclusive’ organising theme. The most
common theme, ‘inclusive workforce’ was brought up by 1 female (G) and 3 male (B, C and F)
participants; Participants G, B and F agree on the need for an inclusive office environment as to not
isolate women, whereas Participant C focuses on social inclusivity: “…I remember that … a few of the
engineers when [a female graduate] joined, they did go out that weekend and had a few drinks and had
a chat so obviously they wanted to include, but more of that sort of thing should happen.” Similarly,
the theme ‘support’ was equally encouraged by Participants H and F; Participant H notes that support
from managers was very helpful, and Participant F recalls support in the form of giving young male
and female PTMs the same tasks as opposed to favouritism as well as general encouragement.

More aware
The other organising theme is ‘more aware’. Consisting of responses from 2 female (D and G) and 1
male (F) participant, the first theme is ‘making everyone aware’. All three give slightly different
responses: Participants D recommends that awareness of gender issues must include managers as well
as operatives; Participant G refers to the awareness in terms of men familiarising themselves with the
fact that women are in the industry and should be respected; and Participant F says that men (particularly
managers) should be more aware of the way they talk to people. Another common theme was ‘training’;
Participants D (female), B and E (male) all agree on this theme, noting that sessions on gender and
inclusion, including unconscious bias, would be beneficial for the entire workforce to attend. Thirdly,
male participants B and C say that ‘promoting a non-masculine behaviour’ would benefit young male
PTMs more so than female, as they say that taking away this manly perception would encourage these
more stereotypically non-masculine men to join the industry.
More diverse team
Promote project roles

Diverse workforce
(B)
More diverse (A, G, H)
team
Positive role models

(G) (B)
Figure 4.20 More diverse team thematic network
The next global theme is ‘more diverse team’. Firstly, female participants A, G and H all agree that a
more ‘diverse workforce’ will make it easier for women, with Participants G and H focusing more
towards more women as opposed to Participant A focusing on diversity as a whole. Another common
theme was ‘positive role models’; Participant G notes that more female role models would benefit
women, for which Participant B agrees but also adds the same for men, i.e. positive role models in
general.

Nothing can be done
No solutions to operative attitudes Nothing to help men

Nothing can
(E) (A, H) (E)
be done
Figure 4.21 Nothing can be done thematic network
A further global theme is ‘nothing can be done’. This is in relation to what 3 participants concluded:
‘nothing to help men – “man up”’. Participants A and H, as said before, gave a near identical response
that they did not think anything could be done to help men, whereas Participant E alludes to the phrase
“man up,” where young male PTMs were likely to struggle getting support or having incidents resolved
due to the masculine nature of the industry. An interesting theme that only Participant E discussed was
that there is ‘no solution to operative attitudes’, where he states: “…the site part of things, foreman,
groundworkers, all that sort of area, I feel like […] [t]hat's never going to go away … I think it’s sad
but […] I don't think you can do anything for that.”
Personality
dependent (D) (E)
4.3 Integration
The third and final section of the results is integration. This is split into the current effective and non-
effective integration methods employed as well as advice from the participants towards their managers
and other young PTMs.
4.3.1 The current integration methods
This section is split into effective and non-effective integration methods, with the most common themes
analysed.

EFFECTIVE
Project and site related tasks
Site understanding tasks

Project understanding tasks Project and site
(A, D, G) (B, C, E, F)
(A, D, G, H) (B, E, F) related tasks
Figure 4.23 Project and site related tasks thematic network
Beginning the global themes of effective integration methods employed by the participants’ teams is
‘project and site related tasks’. Consisting firstly of ‘project understanding tasks’, all 4 female and 3
male (B, E and F) participants, this joint most common theme concerns the tasks that help understand
the project as a whole better, with participants bringing up the following: CAD, RAMS, programme-
related, meetings, cost-related, materials-related, H&S, construction drawings, etc. All 7 of these
participants strongly agreed that these types of task are fundamental in development when beginning as
a young PTM. For example, Participant E highlights the following in relation to why project
understanding tasks are so important: “…you can be given a fake project in university before you’ve
had any on site experience or just industry experience, but until you actually see real quantities, you
can never actually picture it in your head. You can never actually associate a time to it.”
Another equally common theme was ‘site understanding tasks’. This was again recognised by 7
participants, although this time it was 3 female (A, D and G) and all 4 male participants. These tasks
consist of those related to bettering site knowledge and being able to visualise/understand the site better,
which participants gave examples of (some overlap with project tasks): surveying, drawings, CAD,
ITPs, equipment, site visits, etc. Once again, all 7 participants were in strong agreement that this was
highly beneficial for development. Participant F stated the following: “… going on site you learn the
most, because sitting behind a desk and designing everything, you learn a lot but you don’t learn as
much as when you’re actually hands on and you’re viewing everything first-hand.”

Well mentored
Effective mentoring/support
Range of tasks
(A, D, G, H) (C, F)
(B, C, F)
Well
mentored
Improving interpersonal skills Shadowing young PTMs
(A) (F) (D) (E)
Figure 4.24 Well mentored thematic network
The next global theme is ‘well mentored’. Its most common theme, ‘effective mentoring/support’ is
recognised by all 4 female and 2 male (C and F) participants. This concerns how they all benefitted
from having mentors and being mentored/supported when needed, for which all 6 participants here
broadly agreed that this was needed. For example, Participant A states: “…the person who was walking
me around knew so much about the project that really helped me because, I got to know everything
about the project…” The word “effective” is important, however, as Participant A also highlights a
mentor that did not provide the same benefit: “It’s just, [my mentor] didn’t really have the time a lot of
the time, and when we were in the office he couldn’t really explain things.”
Another common theme, which is recognised by 3 male participants (B, C and F) is ‘range of tasks’.
This refers to how their managers/mentors gave them a variety of project and site related tasks in order
to aid their development and understanding. They all gave slightly different accounts, but Participant
C, for example, explains one of the benefits of this range of tasks: “…I was always able to do smaller
projects which I can get more involved in and learn the process and then do more of that sort of stuff
in the larger projects…” Next, Participants A and F similarly agreed that ‘improving interpersonal
skills’ was important; Participant A states she did this through emails and talking to client members,
whereas Participant F states: “I think the biggest example was going into the clients meeting when I first
joined, because that definitely increases your confidence [and] interpersonal skills…” ‘Shadowing
young PTMs’ was a theme noted by Participants D and E, with Participant E strongly encouraging the
need for shadowing other young PTMs: “Shadowing the next youngest person … after a week, I felt like
I could do all them tasks … [a]nd because that lad had been in a similar position to me, I felt that was
very beneficial.”

Value to the team
Independence
Project inclusivity (B, C) Praise

(D, H) (B, C, F) (C, E)
Work-related
Responsibility/trust Better environment
(D, G, H) (B, C, E, F) (A)
Value to
the team
Non-work-
Social inclusivity
related (A) (B, E)
Figure 4.25 Value to the team thematic network
Work-related
The next global theme is ‘value to the team’. Its first organising theme, ‘work-related’, describes the
ways in which participants felt valued by their PMs and other PTMs. An area that 7 participants felt
strongly about is ‘responsibility/trust’. Female participants D, G and H and all 4 male participants
agreed that being trusted with work, or being given responsibility, helped them feel valued, as
Participant D states: “…they gave me that responsibility, they were more than happy for me to take the
lead on that, so I did feel like a full team member.” Participants D and C also agreed that being given
responsibility gives you instant and continuous value. Another common theme was ‘project inclusivity’,
and is recognised by 2 female (D and H) and 3 male (B, C and F) participants. The all agreed that this
provided them with added value to the team, as Participant B states: “…I’d be included in project
meetings with the project managers about progress and stuff, so that made me feel like I was actually
part of the team and I can have an input into how we do things and changes we could make.” One other
theme that Participants B and C strongly agreed on was being given ‘independence’ of doing their own
tasks; again, Participant B’s response was important to include: “…that for me was really helpful
because it challenged me to find my own solution to the problem…” The last theme of this organising

theme is ‘praise’, as recognised and strongly agreed by 2 male participants (C and E). This relates to
their managers/mentors praising their good work, which motivated them to perform well. Participant C
states: “…I think when you do a good job and it's a passes its way up and then you hear someone says,
“well done [name], you’ve done well on that,” it really it does make a difference to how you feel.”
Non-work-related
Another organising theme that adds value to the team is ‘non-work related’; the key theme for this,
which Participants A, B and E concluded, was that ‘social inclusivity’ was important. This can include
general conversation in the office, for which Participant E says “…at the end of the day, you go to work
to work, not to make friends, but if you can be in an environment where it’s possible to make friends,
then you’re definitely going to progress faster…” Conversely, this theme can be in reference to outside
of work, i.e. team building activities, with Participant A stating: “…they made me feel integrated from
the very beginning which was quite nice. And […] after work, if they were going out for a drink I would
go with them just because I enjoyed their company…” It is important to note that this was in reference
to her team that had a very diverse, female-oriented workforce.

Dependences
Repetition
Taking on responsibility (G)
Working harder
(D) (B)
(D)
Personality
Self-development dependent Always learning at start
(G) (C, E) (B)
Dependences
Project busyness dependent Project size dependent

(G) Project
(C)
environment
Figure 4.26 Dependences thematic network
Personality
This last global theme, ‘dependences’, consists of themes that relate to ‘personality’ dependent
attributes or ‘project environment’ dependent considerations. The first of the ‘personality’ organising
theme is ‘self-development dependent’; neither positive nor negative, this describes the level of
motivation to develop that an individual has, and is generally agreed by Participants G, C and E. The
difference is that Participants G and E agreed this in terms of one’s attitude to tasks, as Participant E
states: “…the wrong person could look at being asked to make 3 copies of that drawing file as not
helpful, but it would be not helpful if you didn't read through the drawings and you just saw it as a task
that needed to be done, whereas I saw it as something that, “hang on here, if I’m doing it I might as
well be looking at the drawings.” So that could have been potential unhelpful to someone who just
thought, “why am I here making 3 copies of A3 drawings?”.” One notable theme brought up only by
Participant G was that ‘repetition’ personally helped her development, as she states: “…I seem to learn
a lot by repetition, so if I do it enough times then it sticks.” This is contrary to those who did not
appreciate the act of repeating tasks, as discussed in the next section.

NON-EFFECTIVE
Non-developing tasks
Tasks that no one wants to do “Secretary” tasks

(A, G, H) (B, C, E) (A, G) (B, C)
Other people’s work Non-developing

(A, G, H) (E) tasks Repeated tasks
(D) (B, F)
Stressful tasks
(C)
Figure 4.27 Non-developing tasks thematic network
This next section outlines the non-effective tasks that the PTMs were given, i.e. those that did not aid
their development/understanding in the world of construction. The most common theme from this first
global theme, ‘non-developing tasks’, which was identified by 6 participants, was ‘tasks that no one
wants to do’; other than its self-explanatory title, these are also the unhelpful tasks, and 3 female (A, G
and H) and 3 male (B, C and E) participants are in strong agreement of this. Some describe these as the
“boring” tasks, others generally say that no one else wanted to do these tasks, and Participants G and H
agree in that they felt they were given these due to age; Participant B states: “I’m the young guy, there’s
a job that there doesn't seem to be anyone to do it, so I'll be first in line to be chosen to do that. Which
is fine, I understand it, but in terms of development it’s not helpful.” Another common theme identified
by 2 female (A and G) and 2 male (B and C) participants was ‘“secretary” tasks’, and these refer to the
tasks that had a stereotypically “secretary” role associated with it, i.e. administration duties. In order of
these 4 participants mentioned, these consisted of: photocopying; laminating and scanning; paperwork;
filing.
A third common theme under this global theme was ‘other people’s work’. Other than being self-
explanatory (once again), this can also be described as the irrelevant tasks. Female participants A, G
and H and male participant E spoke about this in the same manner; for example, Participant A states
that she was doing the site admin’s duties, whilst Participant H paid the price for another placement:

“…the placement student the year before me, he didn't do it for 9 months or something, so they gave
me the task to do which was really boring.” Additionally, Participant E recalled his frustration of being
sent to pick up equipment/machinery: “…I wasn’t there as a store man, I was there as a trainee
engineer, I wasn’t there to be sent off on goose chases to pick things up.” The last theme of these non-
developing tasks is ‘repeated tasks’, another self-explanatory theme recognised by Participants D, B
and F. They all strongly agreed that this repetition was not helpful, particularly when they were tedious
tasks such as the secretary tasks mentioned.
Lack of support
Poor mentoring Unappreciated

(A) (A)
Lack of
support
Being overworked
(D)
Figure 4.28 Lack of support thematic network
Dependences
Project size dependent

Coronavirus impact (B)
(A)
Dependences
Personal preferences
Project busyness dependent (C)
(C)

4.3.2 Advice from the young PTMs
Lastly, this sub-section outlines the advice from the participants to their management and to other young
PTMs.
ADVICE TO MANAGEMENT
Better preparation
More opportunities Involve operatives in planning

PM training (D) (C)
(D)
Better planning/preparation
(A, D, G, H) (B, E, F)
PM duties Structure
(D)
Clarification of role responsibilities
(A, G) (B, E)
Better
preparation
Shadowing
Support
Better mentoring
(H)
(A, D, G, H) (B, E, F)
Figure 4.30 Better preparation thematic network
Structure
The first global theme, ‘better preparation’, is derived from 7 participants, all of whom believed they
could have had better ‘structure’ and better ‘support’, which formed the two organising themes. Firstly,
all of these 7 participants, i.e. all women and 3 (B, E and F), were strongly in favour of their
management/team having ‘better planning/preparation’. Essentially, these participants all agreed the
same points, calling for a more structured approach from their managers. They felt as though their team
were underprepared, with Participant E referring to a list of duties he could have been given when he

began: “The worst thing is to just get a placement and there be no actual structure, so it’s just like “oh
yeah, you stay for two months shadowing.” In my case that ended up with not learning anything as an
engineer…” A similarly linked theme was ‘clarification of role responsibilities’, which was recognised
by 2 female (A and G) and 2 male (B and E) participants. This refers to those participants who wanted
to have the responsibilities associated with their role clearly defined upon arrival, for which they all
agreed. Participant B summarises this concept: “…if there would have been a balance, like specific
tasks to learn how to do [the role], that would help develop me and also give me more of a clear position
within the project team.”
Support
The next global theme, ‘support’, has one notable associated theme, ‘better mentoring’. Also referring
to having support from other young PTMs, this theme was discussed by the same 7 participants as
previous. These participants strongly aagreed that, as well as better planning, their team should have
been more effective and supportive in order to be good mentors for them. Participant B described a way
in which this could be achieved: “…a couple weeks here, a couple weeks there, with different people
who know what I need to learn, and almost having in mind, “what’s the goal here? In what way are we
trying to develop me?”” Participants A, D and G allude to this young PTM support, with Participant D
summarising the views of these 3 female participants: “I think it would have been nicer if I’d had a
mentor who maybe was female or not much older than myself that I could have confided in then and
there.”
Increase inclusion efforts
Better people skills

(A) Detailed gender sessions for all
Increase (D)
inclusion efforts
Better social inclusivity/integration

(A, H) (C)
Figure 4.31 Increase inclusion efforts thematic network
A second global theme is ‘increase inclusion efforts’. The key common theme amongst participants (A,
G and C) was ‘better social inclusivity/integration’. This refers to how their managers and other PTMs

should have made more effort to be socially inclusive in conversations and be social as a team outside
of work. Giving similar responses, Participants G and C say that they wished to have been introduced
to everyone and have people, particularly manages, be more proactive in introducing themselves, as
Participant C states: “…I think it should be perhaps [the managers] who open the conversation and
show that they can be spoken to rather than the placement student. And I think maybe 90/95% of the
relationships that I made in my placement year was from me talking first, so if there was a little bit
more of the other way in integrating these people better, I think that would be a huge help.” Another
important theme that Participant D reasons, in relation to gender-based advice, is ‘detailed gender
sessions for all’, as she states: “… if they’d run some sort of sessions on unconscious bias or gender
discrimination with the site teams, I think that would have been useful.”
Dependences
Workforce size dependent Personality dependent

(C) (C)
Dependences
Project busyness dependent

(E)

ADVICE TO OTHER YOUNG PTMs
Self-integrate
Socialising/communication Confidence/relax
(D, G) (B, C, E, F) (A, D) (C, F)
Self-integrate
Respect for all Positive aura

(D, H) (C, E) (D)
Figure 4.33 Self-integrate thematic network
As for the advice that the young PTMs interviewed have for other aspiring young PTMs, the first global
theme is ‘self-integrate’, i.e. things that can be done to “fit in” to the team better. The most common
theme for this was ‘socialising/communication’. As strongly agreed (and advised) by 2 female (D and
G) and all male participants, this theme is self-explanatory in that socialising with other team members
is one of the most effective ways to integrate into the team. Participant G, for example, states a benefit
of doing this: “…if you’re more sociable then you're more comfortable going up to someone asking for
help or them coming to you.” Participant F states this in relation to why he would have made more effort
to network with higher-level managers: “…in this day and age, it’s about who you know, it’s not about
what you know. So you have to have a lot of contacts in order to secure a job in construction.”
Another common theme amongst 2 female (A and D) and 2 male (C and F) participants was
‘confidence/relax’. The is formed from how some of the PTMs reflected that they wished to have had
more confidence and to be more relaxed. Participant A reassuringly advises: “…when I started […] my
placements, I think I was quite shy and scared, and I think I would tell myself to not be that shy –
nothing’s going to happen, you don’t need to be scared…” An equally common theme, amongst
Participants A, D, C and E, was ‘respect for all’. This captures how participants had respect for their
team and more specifically the operatives. In reference to a colleague who became isolated, Participant
E states: “…he put himself above anyone who wasn’t office-based, just because he felt like he was above
the labourers, the foreman [etc.]. If you do that, you’re just making a rod for your own back. So you’re
better than no one on site.”

Be proactive
Work hard
Site understanding (C)
(G, H) (C) Company understanding
(H)
Be proactive
Take on responsibility
(H) (B) Take on opportunities
Report issues (B)
(D)
Figure 4.34 Be proactive thematic network
This section’s second global theme is ‘be proactive’. Somewhat surprisingly, Participants G, H and C
referred back to ‘site understanding’. These 3 participants gave slightly different interpretations of this,
but it was generally agreed to be beneficial due to the fact that the site environment is more difficult to
come to grips with than the project (office) environment. Another theme that Participants H and B
agreed on was to ‘take on responsibility’, with Participant H stating: “…just try to make the most of it
and learn as much as you can and take responsibility when you have a chance.” One theme that
Participant C individually provided was ‘work hard’; the author thought this necessary to include, with
Participant C advising: “…have that confidence, ask for more work, don't be scared to stay a little bit
late and to do a bit extra because you will get noticed, so do it.”

Considerations
Persist through difficulties

(D, H)
No expectations Project time dependent

(A) (G)
Considerations
Scholarships
(E)
Consideration of further studies
(E)
Placements key
(E)
Figure 4.35 Considerations thematic network

5 Discussion
This discussion compares the results to the literature, and is split into gender, age and integration
(purposely in that order for hypotheses reasons). They contain comparison to the literature and also
testing of the associated hypotheses.
5.1 Gender
The first section is gender. This discusses the challenges and positive experiences for the female and
male participants.
5.1.1 Literature comparisons
FEMALE PARTICIPANTS
CHALLENGES
The first part of this discussion concerning the gender aspect of the author’s results is specific only to
the female participants (gender related factors affecting both women and men are discussed in Section
4.2.2). Recapping the first theme of the female participants’ challenges, the majority of participants –
two male and three female – that had witnessed or been a victim of ‘sexist remarks’. The two male
participants (B and E) had witnessed derogatory comments towards women, whilst two of these three
women (D and H) were victim to sexist remarks and behaviour because of male workers. As per the
literature, these are not new concepts; as has been mentioned, research continues to suggest that these
sexist remarks/comments have been continuously occurring for decades, judging by the work of Gale
(1994) all the way through to present day with Naoum et al.’s (2020) research. Within this timeline of
research into gender discrimination, in relation to this ‘sexist remarks’ theme, the other female
participant (A) noted that the “jokes” made about women did not bother her; Powell and Sang (2015)
identified that this was the case with their study, where the women did not mind the sexist comments,
and saw them just as jokes (p.925). Thus, it is evident that these female (and male) participants are not
the first to have experienced each of their individual accounts of sexism in the UK construction industry.
Some other more common themes in this global theme was ‘commanding authority/respect’, where the
three participants recalled times where women would not be taken as seriously as their male colleagues.
This is supported once again by the literature; Gale (1994) concludes this inadequate inclusion as one
key reason behind the large gender imbalance, whilst Dainty et al.’s (2000) work notes in reference to

these types of unrespectful behaviour is that image of the industry is not worth improving if these non-
inclusive attitudes remain. Another common theme, ‘sexism’, was highlighted by 3 female participants
(A, D and H), who have witnessed and experienced instances where they have been seen to be less able
than their male counterparts; this is once again covered by, for example, Powell and Sang (2015).
So the question is, after many years of researchers trying to tackle this issue, why does it remain to be
solved? This leads onto the next global theme of the women’s challenges: ‘male dominated impacts’.
The first of its two organising themes, ‘the historically masculine environment’, is split into various
basic themes which outline women’s experiences (specific only to women) that have been identified
mainly by the female participants. As for the common themes, ‘Male ignorance’ was a theme felt by
three female participants, in relation to how men are unaware of their surroundings and actions, whilst
‘unconscious bias’ and ‘unaccommodating’ were recognised by two female participants, which refer to
men being unaware of both their actions (again) and how to ensure the workplace suits both genders.
All of these issues are supported by Worrall et al.’s (2010) research, who identifies these “male-
dominated organisational cultures” to be the largest reason as to why women face barriers in the UK
construction industry. So the key variable that causes women to struggle in the industry remains to be
because of these implications that its male – and therefore masculine – characteristics and traditions
have.
As for the next organising theme, ‘unhelpful workforce’, this was formed of four basic themes, the first
of which was ‘old workforce’. Participants A and D noted that this old (male) workforce was, in their
experience, narrow-minded and did not work as a team. This is strongly linked to the male culture that
Worrall et al. (2010) outlines, noting the “inflexible working practices,” i.e. the stubborn mindset of
older male workers. And as discussed in Section 4.2, these impacts from older people affect not only
the team but are all too common amongst young people in general, which Duncan and Loretto (2004)
find. The next two themes, ‘meeting quotas not competence’ and ‘negative role models’ is discussed
by Participant D. She recounts two examples of two different women who portrayed a negative image
of women in the industry. One of these, a female manager who acted too authoritative and had a colder
exterior than others, is not directly related to gender – this is more towards attitude and inclusion, as
explored in Section 4.3 – but does however prolong a negative perception of women in construction,
which is aided by Participant F’s account of a female manager not supporting another female colleague
(‘lack of female support’). The other woman was a lazy engineer, which Participant D discusses to be
an overarching focus on getting as many women into the industry as possible, as opposed to hiring
competent PTMs. This is partially supported by Dainty et al.’s (2000) research, in that focusing solely
on getting women into the industry is not beneficial for women, although the focus of Participant D’s
argument is more to do with hiring competent people.

Aside from the negative accounts made by the male and female participants, some positive examples
are present. The first global theme for this was a ‘supportive team’. With the first organising theme for
this being ‘supportive’, participants alluded to their supportive male and female colleagues, which
ultimately benefitted their feeling of inclusion within the team – this notion is supported by Gale (1994),
who, similarly to Sang and Powell’s (2012) conclusions, notes that a lack of inclusion practices can
deter young women. Some participants spoke about how the operatives were supportive, which suggests
that Agapiou (2002) and George and Loosemore’s (2018) research is in agreement, as they were
surprised to find that operatives by and large had respect for their female colleagues and gender
diversity. This supportive aspect is also explored in later sections concerning integration, therefore
implying that said gender and integration aspects are linked. Some hope in the industry is brought with
Participant D’s ‘obvious incidents well-handled’ theme, whereby her experiences of the more obvious
sexist remarks etc. were well-handled by management – this is highlighted by Clarke et al.’s (2017), in
reference to the fact that these inclusive measures must be understood and implemented by all
construction workers. Again, however, it is the ‘unconscious bias’ referred to by Participant D that
struggles to be stamped out, since it is not as obvious as these more severe cases; the industry will not
reach an all-inclusive environment until these more subtle factors are recognised.
The next organising theme of the supportive team was ‘respectful’. This was accounted by the
participants that had an overall good experience with regards to gender. The themes within this –
‘inclusive’, ‘equal’, ‘no sexist remarks’ and ‘educated men respectful’ – show that, again, there is some
hope in the industry, with three female participants saying that, on the whole, they felt that their teams
did not view gender in a discriminatory way. This is different to many pieces of literature, particularly
the fact that 3 of the 4 female participants felt this way. The issue, however, is that all three of these
women did recall instances of being victim to some form of sexism, which almost normalises this
gender inequality associated with the industry; this supports Powell and Sang’s (2015) work that some
of their female participants did not mind the sexist remarks, which, as Powell et al. (2006) concluded,
does not help in the fight for gender equality. Regardless, as is the case with the author’s female
participants, some do have good experiences, and this can be put mainly down to a respectful team.
MALE PARTICIPANTS
CHALLENGES
This next section focuses on the challenges exclusive to men, from both the male and female
participants’ accounts. This considers Section 2.1.3, i.e. gender roles, since this concerns masculinity

concepts that are strongly linked to the construction industries perception of men. Beginning with the
first global theme, ‘male dominated impacts’, this encapsulates how men are affected by this historically
masculine environment as well as women (Section 4.2.2 details the exact similarities of how it affects
both genders). So, the first basic theme stemming from this global theme, ‘non-masculine
disadvantage’, was highlighted by 2 male (C and E) and 3 female (D, G and H), as stated. Rumens’
(2013) work reflects this exact concept, where he discusses (also in a UK context) that this ‘macho’
image the construction industry can be highly impactful to those who are unable “to meet these
masculine ideals” (Rumens, 2013, p.802) – so again, these non-masculine men whom the participants
have pointed out have been negatively affected by this hegemonic masculinity. Similarly, with the
‘banter or bullying?’ theme that Participants E, D and G agreed on, this is supported by Rumens’ work
once again, as this masculinity that is forced upon those who do not meet these ideals will ultimately
suffer the consequences; in this case, the “banter” lines were crossed and evolved into bullying.
The other themes from this section – ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘masculinity conflicts’ – are recognised by
male participants E and F. The masculine conflicts bares a slight resemblance to Iacuone’s (2005)
research, with reference to the tough guy / one-upmanship nature of male operatives; Participant F states
that these two male “team leaders” who were conflicting in his account both used to be operatives,
therefore this may have carried through to their more social/team focused roles – the ability to be a good
team worker should be a mandatory trait to avoid such occurrences. Conversely, the uncomfortable
theme is not one that has been brought up in UK construction research; some researchers have a
tendency to examine, for example, the statistical data associated with the importance of gender diversity
(see Naoum et al., 2020), however focusing on the emotion and feelings towards these topics from the
workforce point of view tends to be less explored. This is likely to do with the fact that quantitative
research does have this more statistical based approach, but also because of the limited focus towards
men. It may be that many young male PTMs in the current era have these feelings towards the masculine
men, but due to the hegemonic masculinity that remains, those men will struggle to speak up and fight
against this cultural norm.
This part of the discussion of these positive male experiences is very much related to the challenges of
being a women, as they essentially parallel each other. The first key difference between men and women
is simply the ‘male advantage’, which is recognised by all four male participants and two female
participants. All of these participants inferred that men had no disadvantage in the industry. Since this
theme is directly related to how women are at a disadvantage in comparison, it is fully supported by the
aforementioned researchers that explore the gender-based challenges for women (e.g. Gale, 1994;
Dainty et al., 2004; Worrall et al., 2010). There is no change here, therefore. This does however mean

that many do not recognise the challenges of being a man in this environment – i.e. the non-masculine
disadvantage (as explored under the previous sub-section, ‘challenges’) – which implies that these
challenges are still very much unaware by many young PTMs, and are unfortunately likely to remain
this way unless they are brought to light at a project team level.
The next global theme, ‘inclusive team’, which is split into both ‘diversity’ and ‘supportive’, outlines
the accounts of the male participants that found these aspects to be beneficial to their development.
These cross over once again with research into integration; having this diverse and supportive team is
not only preferred by the participants (including female), but researchers (e.g. Mazerolle et al., 2012;
Farndale et al., 2015; Smith et al., 1994) also suggest that these two factors can play a role in better
integration – and therefore performance and development – of young PTMs. This global theme of an
inclusive team is therefore supported by the literature. One point that Participant F mentions, ‘non-
hostile in office’, is something that is alluded to by Clarke et al. (2017), who mentions that training and
support mechanisms should be recognised be everyone, but more particularly by the operatives; this
could be indicative of the masculinity side of the industry, which is more prominent with site workers
(Iacuone, 2005; Sang, 2007). Therefore this ‘non-hostile in office’ theme is indirectly supported when
tying these pieces of literature together.
The next global theme, ‘personality dependent’, acts as its own individual theme. As Participant C
points out, he found it easier to integrate due to his common interest in football, which he recognises
may be more difficult for women. This is fully supported by Baxter and Wallace (2009), since they
established that, however good intentioned it is to bring more women into the industry, women find it
harder to feature in men’s discourse. So once again referring Dainty et al.’s (2000) conclusion, attracting
women into the industry does nothing unless the right inclusion procedures are in place and maintained.
BOTH GENDERS
This section of the discussion focuses on the comparisons between the literature and the similar
challenges that the author’s male and female participants have faced, under the global theme ‘male
dominated impacts’. As the first organising theme, ‘the historically masculine environment’ was broken
down into two closely linked themes; ‘masculine behaviour’ and ‘non-inclusive’. As has been discussed
in the two previous sections, these masculinity and non-inclusive environment concepts go together;
this statement is supported Gale (1994) recognises that inadequate inclusion may deter young women
and men, thereby acknowledging its effects towards both genders. Iacuone’s (2005) research is also
heavily supportive of the existence of masculine behaviour in the industry, particularly amongst
operatives, as has been mentioned. Participant E recognises that the small percentage of women means
men over-sexualise them; this only enhances the need to involve more women in construction, which

would ensure, as supported by Worrall et al. (2010), that these old-fashioned, sexist views and practices
stemming from the large male demographic would decrease.
The next organising theme described an abundance of male colleagues compared to a lack of women;
‘non-diverse workforce’. Its most commonly agreed basic theme, ‘male-dominated’, was no surprise.
The participants generally agreed that 85 to 95% of their co-workers (in the office) were male, and as
is told by Rawlinson (2019), his similar percentage of 14% women (i.e. 86% men) in the UK
construction industry means this bracket given by participants is supported by the literature. Participant
B’s account of his projects’ gender demographic was a surprise, however, as he recalled that there were
many managerial women in the office which gave him a brighter view of the industry. He did not give
an exact figure/percentage as to how many managerial women he encountered, however because he felt
it was necessary to point out in the interview means that this was different to many sites. This may be
due to him being involved in a particularly large UK construction project; these typically have a more
diverse workforce as they are more likely to be used as an advertisement to attract young women into
the industry – this was also the case on one of Participant A’s projects for which she was highly
motivated by the abundance of young, female colleagues.
The next theme, ‘operatives AKA “the lads”’, which considers accounts of the participants’ negative
experiences with them, is one that is in high support by the literature. Referencing Iacuone (2005) once
again, he found that operatives impose their masculinity towards others that “are unable to meet these
masculine ideals” (Rumens, 2013, p.802), as well as towards each other. Sang’s (2007) research also
recognises the troubles that operatives can have, as she found how they affect young PTMs in general,
i.e. men included. Literature that is contradicted, however, is Agapiou (2002) and George and
Loosemore’s (2018) research, since they found that the operatives they analysed were and supportive,
as mentioned. Although this is the case for some participants, other disagree, therefore no definitive
answer as to whether this issue has improved or worsened can be given. Another theme, ‘women in
non-engineering roles’, was something that participants were displeased about; Brown’s (2019)
research supports these claims, as he found that women make up just 5% of engineering roles. And
lastly, ‘male office workers’ was a theme that has a tendency to be overlooked; with a great deal of
focus towards operatives, as detailed above, the male office team that cause such problems can be
forgotten. But as Clarke et al. (2017) suggests, inclusion and diversity measures should be understood
by all construction workers, not just operatives.

5.1.2 Testing H1
H1: The UK construction industry remains to be lacking in both knowledge and importance
of sexism / gender discrimination / gender roles; PMs across the industry do not take
active measures in the project environment to ensure young female and male PTMs get
the right support in this area, and therefore inclusion and a non-discriminatory
environment continue to be absent.
Fortunately, there is a great deal of literature surrounding sexism, gender discrimination, gender roles
and masculinity, therefore both hypotheses relating to gender can be justifiably answered. The first
hypothesis regarding gender, H1, is in relation to both genders; from the results and the literature used
to support it, H1 is correct. Participants were specifically asked questions relating to the
gender/inclusion knowledge of their managers, as well as what has actually been implemented, for the
purpose of identifying the extent of support that young female and male PTMs receive. With 7 of the 8
candidates stating that their managers have either not done anything or conducted non-effective
measures of dealing with gender challenges, it is clear why this non-inclusive, discriminatory
environment remain.
5.2 Age
This section entails the discussion of the results for age, again looking at previous literature and then
testing of the hypotheses.
As was discussed within the literature review, age is a tricky area to look at with regards to young
PTMs. For starters, researchers tend to focus on ageism in reference to old people exclusively (e.g.
Sargeant, 2011; Bytheway, 2005), however, as has been proven by other researchers/bodies, the ageism
impacts are inclusive of young people (e.g. Loretto et al., 2000; Duncan and Loretto, 2004; Angouri,
2012; Office for National Statistics, 2019). Secondly, the research into the ageism area, let alone
research focusing on young people, lacks in the construction industry, since the current primary focus
is on improving gender gap and sexism issues that continue to be present. Where ageism is explored,
researchers focus on the ageing workforce (e.g. Taylor and Walker, 1994; McGoldrick and Arrowsmith,
2007). This leaves a large gap in knowledge for the young PTMs and addressing their age issues,
particularly for young male PTMs. Regardless, the age results have been formatted into a combined

male/female PTM struggle, since the aim with this section is to show how age impacts young PTMs
irrespective of gender.
In terms of the challenges the young PTMs have faced, the global themes that arose were ‘lack of
integration’, ‘male-dominated impacts’ and ‘project dependent’. Firstly, the lack of integration global
theme is split into two organising themes, ‘lack of respect’ and ‘lack of support’. The initial point to
note, then, is that age discrimination is present amongst young PTMs, thereby supporting Angouri’s
(2012) claim that it affects old and young workers. This also provides overwhelming support for Snape
and Redman’s (2003) research, who concluded that, in reference to old people, the impact of ageism
towards young people were “at least as widespread” (p.87). Additionally, Loretto et al.’s (2000)
research identified that 35% of their business student participants had experienced age-related
discrimination; judging by this research, and the fact that 7 of the 8 participants in the author’s sample
were in some way affected negatively by their age, a strong case is provided for this issue being brought
to light in the focuses of the UK construction industry.
Referring back to this ‘lack of respect’ and ‘lack of support’, many individual themes arose. Considering
Loretto et al.’s (2000) research, they found that the key themes were that the young people felt they
were seen as untrustworthy, worked for a lower pay and were given less responsibility. For
untrustworthiness, the author formulated themes that can be closely linked based on the participants’
responses. For example, ‘negative perception’ and ‘being heard’ had the two highest ratios of
participants within the ‘lack of respect’ theme at 5 and 3 (respectively) out of 8, both of which partially
relate to how participants were not given much responsibility due to the incompetence perception placed
on them by older members. Responsibility can be closely linked with not being trusted, since being
trusted less on the basis of young age means you will be given less responsibility, and so Loretto et al.’s
(2000) research is further supported in their statement that their sample claimed they were
untrustworthy. Moreover, Duncan and Loretto’s (2004) research found that negative attitudes was their
second highest common theme; ‘negative perception’, as per the author’s research, appears to remain
an issue for young PTMs, therefore this research is supported as well. However, working for lower pay,
which was identified as a large percentage of the perceived age discrimination for Loretto et al. (2000)
and Duncan and Loretto’s (2004) samples, is non-existent in the author’s research. This could indicate
that working for a lower pay is not an issue amongst young PTMs in the UK construction industry, and
that this is expected due to the fact they are beginning their engineering career.
The second global theme, ‘male-dominated impacts’, was split into ‘male workforce’ and ‘masculine
characteristics’. These themes, in relation to age, are virtually non-existent within the literature that
relates to ageism towards young PTMs. Of course, when comparing these words to gender they have a
strong link, simply due to the gender implications of the terms and the masculine nature of the industry.

However, it is important to recognise these themes in relation to age: when the participants were asked
about who the causes of their struggles were in relation to age discrimination, these themes at the
beginning of this paragraph were the most common, i.e. middle-aged white men and masculinity. So,
not only are gender discrimination and racial discrimination caused by this outdated, masculine
environment, but ageism towards young people as well. The final global theme for these age challenges
was ‘project dependent’. This had its own basic themes since it acts as both a global and organising
theme. As per the previous global theme, this was even harder to relate to age for the same reason that
not enough literature exists in this subject.
For the positive experiences the young PTMs, the global themes were ‘supportive team’ and ‘personal
development’. ‘Supportive team’ was then split into two further organising themes, ‘inclusion focused’
and ‘development focused’, whereas ‘personal development’ had its own basic themes, similarly to
‘project dependent’. Once again, because the literature surrounding ageism towards young people is
scarce, it was difficult to draw comparisons between age and these positive experiences. Furthermore,
relating how ageism towards young people can be reduced through addressing implementing these
positive examples is an even scarcer topic. Contrarily, this can be compared to the negative treatment
of older people found in Duncan and Loretto’s (2004) research; older people were affected by having
reduced training opportunities, so in relation to the author’s research, some participants noted that
younger people have an advantage where they can learn faster and are given tasks that would not be
given to older people. So although the author understood that there was a miniscule amount of research
to compare to in these positive examples, the aim with that particular section of the results was also to
highlight some of the important factors that, as said, can help to recognise and therefore reduce ageism
towards young people.
5.2.2 Testing H2 and H3
H2: Although in some cases at an advantage due to their age, a lack of knowledge in this
area means that young PTMs in the UK construction industry remain to suffer from the
effects of ageism and therefore have their development impacted; these impacts largely
stem from the masculine environment of the industry.
Many of the themes brought up in the results have been unable to be compared with current literature
(as is the aim with this discussion section) as there simply remains to be a large amount of literature in
this area of ageism towards young PTMs not yet identified. In some respects, this decreases the validity
of this research (discussed in Section 6.2), however this only proves the first part of the author’s
hypothesis, H2; a lack of knowledge in this area is clear, and young PTMs remain to suffer the effects

of ageism, which both ultimately impact their development into the project team. The second part of
H2 is also a valid statement, since, as previously mentioned, all participants who recounted negative
experiences were caused by masculine characters.
H3: Young men entering the industry face discrimination from older, more experienced men
as a result of the combined effects of gender roles (i.e. masculinity) and age
discrimination concepts, even if said men are not a great deal older or more
experienced.
This next hypotheses, H3, follows on from both H1 and H2, and it regards the reason as to why the
gender/age challenges discussed in H1/H2 remain; it is evident that older men cause problems for young
women, judging by the results and the literature, however the purpose of H3 was to show that men can
struggle due to the same reasons as women: (hegemonic) masculinity. The idealised, stereotypical
image of men in the construction industry mean that those who do not meet this criteria will suffer and
be victimised because of it, hence the common ‘non-masculine disadvantage’ theme brought up by 5
participants. Also worth mentioning is that this in support of Chan’s (2013) claim that simply stating
“male-ness” as the reason behind exclusion towards women (and men) is not the case. The phrases the
author uses, “older” and “not a great deal older or more experienced,” were also accurate, since some
of the accounts describe the causes of gender challenges to young, non-masculine men to include
members of a similar level/competence, as well as older and more experienced men. One concept that
Participant H alluded to, however, in reference to a middle-aged man experiencing masculinity effects
from other men, goes slightly against the author’s hypothesis, since said man is not included in the age
discrimination bracket. Therefore H3’s key points, although not unquestionably accurate, are correct.
5.3 Integration
The last section of the discussion is integration. Again, the literature has been compared and the
hypothesis analysed.
This section discusses the majority of the author’s results from the integration section, through
analysing the effective and non-effective integration methods.
Beginning with the effective integration measures, the first global theme was ‘project and site related
tasks’. With 7 participants each for the themes ‘project understanding tasks’ and ‘site understanding

tasks’ (covering all 8 participants), these themes consist of specific, implementable project- and site-
based tasks, taken directly from the participants’ experiences. As has been mentioned, this specific level
of information is very difficult to compare with the literature, as the outcomes of many researchers’
work is very general and in some cases vague. However, fortunately for the author, this level of detail
for the UK construction industry is not present, meaning that much of these results are new concepts. It
is therefore vital that managers and other PTMs consider these for implementation.
The next global theme of the effective measures was ‘well mentored’. Again, all 8 participants were
involved in some way in assembling this global theme, with 6 of the 8 forming its most common theme;
‘effective mentoring/support’. It is a good sign for the industry that 6 participants noted this, as it means
that managers and other PTMs have the ability to mentor young PTMs to an effective level. As is backed
up by Russell (2002) and Mazerolle et al. (2012), mentoring and support are arguably the most
important tactics employed by managers due to its more personal, one-on-one nature that manager and
employee have, therefore this theme supports past literature in the scarcely explored
development/integration areas.
Another common theme, ‘range of tasks’, is supported by Russell (2002); he summarises this concept
as “challenged,” however the idea is still the same in that delegating a range of temporary tasks are
highly effective in keeping young PTMs inclined to enjoy their work and develop. ‘Improving
interpersonal skills’ is not present in the literature, per say, however this could be implied as part of the
“challenged” concepts, which would naturally increase ones feeling of value and confidence in the
team, therefore the author is not claiming this to be a new concept. ‘Shadowing young PTMs’ could be
linked to ‘effective mentoring/support’ as the term “mentoring” can be assumed to act as an umbrella
for shadowing, Lastly, ‘praise’ is something that Russell (2002) alludes to, since he states that managers
must recognised good work to retain (p.14). So for this ‘well mentored’ global theme, there are no new
concepts, but all themes are acknowledged by the literature to be effective.
The next global theme, ‘value to the team’, consisted of ‘work-related’ and ‘non-work-related’ value.
The most common theme for the former was ‘responsibility/trust’; 7 participants of the total 8 stated
that this theme was essential to their value and development, and where Russell’s (2002) guide states
that increased responsibility should be given in order to reward young PTMs (p.14), it is clear that the
literature is in support. Whilst in agreement with Russell’s (2002) notion, the author does however add
to this, stating that this responsibility should be given regardless of recognition of good work. The
participants felt that being given this made them feel more like part of the team, so as opposed to only
rewarding young PTMs with responsibility, the author suggests that managers should give them
responsibility to begin with, thereby increasing their sense of value to the team. ‘Independence’ is
another theme which adds to this sense of recognition and value. Furthermore, ‘project inclusivity’ is

linked by several other concepts identified in the literature; where Farndale et al. (2015) concluded that
inclusion resulted in higher performance and Russell (2002) and Mazerolle et al. (2012) recognise the
importance of mentoring and support , this ‘project inclusivity’ theme makes sense to be important on
a development level as opposed to the social level that inclusion typically refers to. The ‘non-work-
related’ organising theme consisted solely of ‘social inclusivity’; this is highly supported by the
literature to add value, as both Farndale et al. (2015) and Smith et al. (1994) recognise that social
integration and inclusion result in a more productive and efficient team.
The first global theme of the non-effective integration measures was ‘non-developing tasks’, which all
8 participants were vocal in. The most common theme, ‘tasks that no one wants to do’, was highlighted
by 6 of the 8 participants, and other common themes included ‘“secretary” tasks’, ‘other people’s work’
and ‘repeated tasks’. The author has asked these participants what unhelpful tasks they were given for
multiple reasons. Firstly, to simply prove that, although there are good integration measures, poor ones
are also present. Secondly, this could indicate that many managers – and researchers – focus only on
what should be implemented; research conducted by those mentioned (i.e. Russell, 2002; Mazerolle et
al., 2012; Farndale, 2015; Smith et al., 1994) provide a good selection of general solutions that can be
translated to the project environment to help develop young PTMs. However, some may respond better
to a list of “don’ts” as well as “dos”, as a simple list of these solutions that should be implemented can
overshadow an equally important list: the should nots. The same can be said for the second global theme
– ‘lack of support’ – as the researchers mentioned, particularly Russell (2002) and Mazerolle et al.
(2012), highlight the vast array of benefits that these add. Summarising this part of the discussion,
therefore, the majority of these non-developing concepts can be considered as a somewhat new area of
the development literature.
One global theme that cannot be put down to either effective or non-effective measures was
‘dependences’, since the majority of these themes describe the areas in which participants are in control
of. Part of the ‘personality’ organising theme, the most common theme was ‘self-development
dependent’. As this is fully dependent on the personality of the individual, this is neither a positive nor
negative impact to young PTMs. It is important to recognise that a relatively large part of integration is
down to the drive of the young PTM in question. Wong et al. (2008) and Fuller and Unwin (2004)
support this idea of individuality, where they both allude to the fact that development of individuals is
largely due to how their managers delegate responsibilities. So these personality dependences are not
new concepts in relation to literature. A new area, however, is that some participants recognise that
their experiences can be dependent on the project in general, comprising themes such as ‘project
busyness dependent’ and ‘project size dependent’. This is something that is, for the most part, out of
the control of both managers and PTMs, as these are largely dependent on the scale and urgency of the
project. The author can confidently say, therefore, that the literature does not allude to such situations

having an influence, although they can generally be assumed to have an impact regardless of the
literature.
5.3.2 Testing H4
H4: Whilst some effective practices are employed, non-effective ones are present; PMs and
other PTMs do not adequately focus on developing and valuing young PTMs, and often
waste their talent by delegating unhelpful/unfulfilling tasks.
Some of the concepts outlined in this part of the discussion are backed up by literature; there is an
indication that PMs employ good, effective practices that young PTMs can use to develop well. But
this is not consistent, as is evident with the fact that all participants have stated areas or tasks they have
been given in which they had found little or no development. Although sometimes necessary, these
non-effective tasks appear to happen too often, which ultimately means that the young PTMs’ first
experiences of the industry and of being a young PTM are jeopardised for the sake of the PM’s / project
team’s ease. With this evidence, H4 is deemed by the author to be an accurate and true reflection of the
young PTMs’ experiences.

6 Conclusions, limitations and recommendations
The last chapter of this research paper is the conclusions, limitations and recommendations.
6.1 Conclusions
The author has aimed to investigate how age, gender and current integration methods impact the
development of young (16-25 years old) and inexperienced (2 years or less) project team members in
the UK construction industry. In order to achieve this, an extensive review of the literature surrounding
discrimination, sexism, gender roles, gender discrimination, age discrimination and integration has been
conducted, with the gap in literature identified to form four hypotheses. The participants meeting the
criteria mentioned have been interviewed using a qualitative, semi-structured approach. Their responses
have been converted into results via the use of thematic analysis (derived from Attride-Stirling (2001)),
and these have then been compared to the relevant areas of the body of knowledge within the discussion.
The author has met the aim of this project, and all four hypotheses were found to be true. Based purely
on the author’s results, he concludes the following: (H1) the UK construction industry lacks in the
understanding and importance of gender-based concepts, and PMs do not actively promote an inclusive
environment; (H2) young PTMs suffer the effects of ageism due to the masculine environment; (H3)
young male PTMs suffer from the effects of masculinity from all ages of male PTMs; (H4) non-effective
integration measures are employed and PMs do not adequately value young PTMs.
This research has contributed to the body of knowledge in multiple areas. Regarding these areas within
this research, for which the author considers have been effectively executed, the most important aspect
is the concept itself i.e. the combination of age, gender and integration, all within the focus of the UK
construction industry. Firstly, the focus on young PTMs (i.e. age). As has been alluded to throughout
this research, focuses towards older people can outshine those towards younger people (e.g. Taylor and
Walker, 1994; Bytheway, 2005; Sargeant, 2011; McGoldrick and Arrowsmith, 2017). The author has
shown, however, that the work of the researchers who focus on ageism effects towards young people
(e.g. Loretto et al., 2000; Snape and Redman, 2003; Duncan and Loretto, 2004) can be translated into
the UK construction industry, thereby adding an extra branch to the body of knowledge; the author’s
research has fundamentally proven that young PTMs can, although sometimes positively, be negatively
affected due to their age. It is known by many that sexism / gender discrimination is commonplace in
the construction industry, and so to look at an area that has less focus than gender was invaluable, since
many comparisons were drawn between the two. This area does however require more research and
development; the negative age effects caused by the combination of masculinity and older men towards

young PTMs is very scarcely explored, therefore the author’s research should be used as something to
develop on as opposed to a closing chapter of this important issue.
Secondly, the author deems the focus on male as well as female PTMs as having been well implemented
and a valuable addition to the body of knowledge. The key point that this research has emphasised, with
the help of previous research (e.g. Rumens, 2013; Chan, 2013), is that masculinity is the problem that
links all issues young PTMs face in the UK construction industry – i.e. ageism and gender-based
problems – together. Masculinity affects young men and women, and as a result their development and
integration into the team is negatively impacted. The author is satisfied that the aim, objectives and
hypotheses associated with this area have been sufficiently met. But again, further research must be
dedicated to this area, as the author concludes that the impacts of masculinity on young PTMs in the
UK construction industry is a concept where there remains a large gap in knowledge.
It has proven difficult to find much research that covers issues regarding integration (of young PTMs)
in the UK construction industry. Although Russell’s (2002) guide was particularly relevant, many
comparisons have had to be drawn in order to relate a large amount of the research covered in the
literature review’s integration section (Section 2.1.5) to the author’s topic. In some ways, it may have
been naïve of the author to focus a large part of this research on integration of young PTMs since there
is not a great deal of research to develop on. However, the author defends this integration topic; the
author began this research knowing that the development of young PTMs is highly dependent on the
integration methods deployed by managers, due to personal experience. With this being proven by the
young PTMs that have participated in the research, the author hopes that this topic can be explored
further so that this issue can be reduced.
There are also areas that the author believes could be improved, so that researchers developing this
research can add reliability, replication and validity. Firstly, the sample size could be increased. Using
a smaller number of participants than initially intended, the author has been limited to collecting a
certain amount of data that could easily be made more reliable with more participants; Guest et al.’s
(2006) findings suggest that 12 interviews or more will provide a more than reasonable amount of codes,
therefore, should researchers utilise both female and male participants, the author recommends
conducting 14 interviews or more to maximise the number of codes. Should the author have
implemented this number, more themes could have been created and ultimately there would be more
contribution to the body of knowledge. Another improvement related to the sample is that the author
should have approached the participants earlier. Not only would this have made sure that all participants
were in the large contracting firms the author initially intended to use, but that the sample size would
have had a higher likelihood of being larger, thereby providing more themes (as previously mentioned).
On reflection, this is something that could have easily been done, however other university priorities

meant this process was delayed. Regardless, the suggestion by the author is to focus on narrowing down
a research area and contacting participants early (if time is a necessary consideration).
Furthermore, the author’s initial intention was to utilise young PTMs from small-medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) as well as large companies (LCs). The author recognises that SMEs and LCs have
many contrasting features. Therefore, further research into any of the three key components of the
author’s, i.e. age, gender and integration, could have the additional comparison of “SME vs LC”
analysed, as they have some significant differences including methods of communication, willingness
to improve, management approaches, and applicability of potential benefits (see Smith et al., 1994;
Terziovski and Samson, 2000; McAdam and Reid, 2001; Nicholas et al., 2011; Adebanjo et al., 2015).
Another point of comparison for further research could be to track the different effects towards young
PTMs through time – the study could focus on young PTMs that have just began their placement and
also those who are either coming towards the end of it, for example.
6.2 Limitations
For those who may wish to build on this research, the following limitations and associated precautions
are noted. The first is the use of qualitative analysis. The author chose this method of qualitative analysis
in order to identify the experiences and the feelings of the participants interviewed, on the basis of the
age, gender and integration methods. Using this qualitative approach of coding and thematic analysis,
themes were then drawn in order to create the topics/focuses for each section. By the very nature of
qualitative analysis, however, the themes created are subjective to how the author has interpreted the
results; this therefore limits the validity of the discussion. Adding to this, an element of biasness may
also play a part in said discussion, due to drawings comparisons that were not categorically present –
this can be seen as the case with many qualitative pieces of research. It could be necessary, then, to
consider a quantitative approach; quantitative data provides a definitive, undeniable set of results that
cannot be altered by the researcher. They give a set of measurable results that can be directly compared
to that of past studies, resulting in a more valid discussion. The drawback of the quantitative approach
is the fact that it provides less detail in its answers, and so this should be carefully considered by those
who wish to build on this topic.
Another limitation is the fact that very little research is available for the subjects of ageism towards
young PTMs and integration procedures. Young PTMs in general are not focused on by many, since
they are considered to be at a fortunate period of their life where they have less pressure and can gain a
lot of knowledge. However, as has been found, they can suffer from ageism just as much as old/older
PTMs can in ways primarily concerning the non-welcoming, non-inclusive attitude that is held by older

PTMs towards them. Similarly with integration procedures, solid research that identifies the best and
worst integration procedures are hard to come by; the discussion for integration, therefore, has proved
difficult to draw comparisons between current literature and the author’s results. Further research in
these areas are required to increase the validity of this research, since the author has identified that a
large amount of literature is scarce in relation to the themes found in this research, making it difficult
to ensure a fully valid discussion.
Lastly, there is the data itself. Due to the fact that only 8 participants were used for this research, it
unfortunately has limited statistical significance. For example, one point of comparison that could have
been made is that 7 out of the 8 participants had experienced age-related discrimination, a ratio that is
2.5 times greater than that of Loretto et al.’s (2000) sample of business students affected by age
discrimination (35%). This could have indicated that not only is ageism amongst young PTMs still an
issue, but that it may have become worse over previous years. However, because of the large difference
in sample size between the two, as well as Loretto et al.’s (2000) research using business students which
has a different environment altogether, it is not statistically valid to make these claims. So even the
author’s most common themes are only indicative of the particular concepts; they do not provide
tangible evidence for them. This is a big limitation therefore, so in order to make these claims more
accurate, a larger, more statistically significant sample should be utilised
6.3 Recommendations
Based on his research findings, the author’s recommendations for the key stakeholders are as follows.
6.3.1 Construction bodies/companies: Inclusion sessions
First are the author’s recommendations for the professional bodies whose aims are to promote an
inclusive environment and attract women in the construction industry, e.g. CITB, ICE and construction
firms. It is good to attract women into the industry – some of the participants in the author’s sample
have noted how female managers are beneficial for a variety of reasons, as well as the fact that more
women in the industry will push the outdated, masculine stereotypes/methods out. However, it is one
thing to attract more women and another thing to retain them. Echoing the conclusions of Dainty et al.
(2000; 2004), therefore, upon attracting women into the industry, the author also advises more efforts
are put into retaining them; some of the participants interviewed have brought to light how various
construction bodies/firms aim to hit their quotas of ‘X’ amount of women joining the industry, as
opposed to focusing on the crucial subject of what happens after being inducted into the industry. From
the author’s research – as well as the past and current literature – it is clear that creating an inclusive

environment is far from being achieved. Simply hiring women for the sake of hitting a number, resulting
in women commencing their role and either not enjoying it or not meeting the standard that the role
requires, is only prolonging the issue. The author believes the best ways to resolve this issue is by
addressing the elephant in the room head on: masculinity.
The author concludes that masculinity can be fought by actively promoting a non-masculine
environment and taking action against those who do not abide by these measures. As has been found
within this research, masculinity effects both young women and men on the basis of their age and
gender, so regular “anti-masculinity” sessions and other sessions based on gender/age (particularly
unconscious bias) that involve all women and men in the project team – including operatives – would
be sure to at least bring the issue to light; note that operatives will not change their attitudes by
themselves, and so they must be included if the masculine site environment is to change. The word
“regular” cannot be stressed enough, as it is clear how the participants involved in this research have
had an inadequate consistency of inclusion sessions These sessions should be explicit in its effects
towards men, as to not alienate the women involved; this will make these women feel more comfortable,
but also the men, since they should be made to feel more included in the topic/discussion. Essentially,
the aim with these sessions should be to stamp out the feeling of two separate genders and different age
groups, to create one equal workforce.
6.3.2 PMs: Inclusion sessions
Focusing on PMs and other management staff, there is only so much these sessions mentioned can do
when led by the relevant construction bodies/companies. Therefore, the author firstly urges that
managers ensure the aims/outcomes of these sessions are properly implemented and maintained in order
to ensure said aims are met; PMs must understand that it is considerably difficult for women to express
the importance of unconscious bias in the office, especially in an industry that is reliant on the male
dominant demographic implementing these changes.
6.3.3 PMs: The integration dos and don’ts
Summarising the outcomes of the results and discussion, a specific, practical list of the most effective
ways in which PMs can integrate young PTMs are as follows. The young PTMs agree that tasks related
to helping them understand the project as a whole and the site itself were invaluable to their
development. For project-related, the most useful responsibilities can include: CAD tasks such as as-
builts, writing RAMS, programme-based exercises, cost-related tasks, materials work such as material
reconciliations and materials approval forms, H&S maintenance, and construction drawing tasks.

Likewise, for site-related, the most helpful tasks can include: surveying exercises such as setting out
and as-builts i.e. familiarising with the site and surveying equipment, CAD / construction drawing site-
based tasks such as marking services, ITPs, site machinery/equipment familiarisation, and general site
visits.
The young PTMs must have effective mentoring and support throughout their experience to ensure their
introduction to the industry is both appealing and valuable, and this should be done by investing time
into them and providing them with a wide range of role-specific tasks, allowing them to improve their
interpersonal skills and shadowing others. Young PTMs enjoy feeling valued by their team, so this can
be done by giving them increased responsibility and trusting their talent, involving them in the project
through including in meetings and allowing them to work with different levels in the project team,
allowing them to be independent when required (particularly if given their own projects to do), and
praising their good work. PMs and other PTMs should make an effort to be social and provide a
welcoming, friendly atmosphere, as this increases young PTMs’ comfortability and therefore
productivity within the team. Also, PMs should recognise that all young PTMs are different, and
therefore those who may take longer to integrate or are less self-developing should not be seen as merely
another placement/graduate to be used as an assistant, but should be invested in to set them up for being
diligent and reliable PTMs of the future.
As for the non-effective integration measures, PMs should recognise the following points. Young PTMs
will not develop when they are given the tedious tasks that no one wants to do. Just because they will
do them with no questions asked, this does not mean they are learning; it simply means that they want
to prove their value to the team, however showcasing their skills and therefore value will not be
achieved by continuously giving them these unhelpful tasks. Similar examples include administration
tasks, doing other people’s work for the sake of that person’s ease, and repeated tasks. Furthermore,
young PTMs will struggle to develop/integrate when they are not supported by the team, i.e. poorly
mentored and unappreciated. PMs must realise that young PTMs will not want to pursue a role where
they were made to carry out these unfulfilling tasks and given a lack of support, and that they will not
be able to help the project be executed any more efficiently if they are confined to carrying out these
roles.
6.3.4 PMs: Preparation and inclusion efforts
There were two sections left purposely from the integration discussion (Section 5.3) so that the author
can use them as part of his recommendations. The first set of recommendations, as in Section 4.3.2, is
for PMs. The young PTMs call for better preparation from PMs and the project team in general. To be

prepared, they need their experiences to, firstly, have structure. This achieved by planning for their
arrival so that they have a set of tasks that increase in scale/responsibility, thereby ensuring their
continued development, and also by ensuring that the PM themselves, other PTMs and the young PTM
all understand what everyone’s responsibilities are; this will leave no confusion as to what everyone,
particularly the young PTM in question, should be doing. Secondly, they must be supported; as is
mentioned before, mentoring is key, and the young PTMs agreed that their experiences could have been
improved by their PMs/PTMs being better mentors. Considering these points, it could be beneficial to
have the PM meet with other PTMs prior to the young PTM’s arrival in order to discuss how to
collectively mentor them, since it is evident that PMs themselves can sometimes be too busy to mentor.
Inclusion is the other vital aspect that young PTMs advise PMs to acknowledge. The most common
consideration for this area was that participants called for better social inclusivity/integration from their
PMs. This can be achieved by the PM and all other PTMs introducing themselves to the young PTM in
order to provide an immediate comfortable atmosphere, and then maintaining a social environment both
at work and outside of work. Also, gender and diversity sessions fall under inclusion, therefore the
previous considerations concerning regular anti-masculinity sessions should be adhered to.
6.3.5 Young PTMs: Advice from other young PTMs
Last, but certainly not least, is the advice from the young PTMs involved in this study to other aspiring
young PTMs. Their key piece of advice is to self-integrate. They say that socialising/communicating
with the PM and other PTMs will not only ensure you will enjoy going to work every day, but it will
also allow you to feel more comfortable asking questions / for help if needs be. It is also important to
remember that creating this good impression through socialising will pave the way for the rest of your
career. They also suggest being confident and generally relaxing; there is nothing to worry about and
your team want to see you succeed and feel like part of the team. Additionally, they say to have respect
for every person in the project team and the site team, as a lack of this respect will result in becoming
isolated and not seen as a team member. The other key message from the young PTMs is to be proactive.
They suggest that actively going out on site to use the surveying equipment or to generally familiarise
yourself, as well as taking on responsibility were possible and working hard, will ensure that you are
not only seen as more of a team member by others but that you will learn much faster than other young
PTMs.
A lasting message from the young PTMs is that you should persist through initial difficulties if you
experience them, as it will get easier, and that you should not expect the experience to be either good

or bad; make the most of the experience and learn as much as possible in order to pave the way for the
rest of your career.

7 References
Abrams, D., Russell, P.S., Vauclair, C.-M. and Swift, H. 2011. Ageism in Europe: Findings from the
European Social Survey [Online]. Available from:
https://kar.kent.ac.uk/29733/1/ID10704%20AgeUKAgeism%20Across%20Europe2011%20prep
ubReport%5b1%5d.pdf
Agapiou, A. 2002. Perceptions of gender roles and attitudes toward work among male and female
operatives in the Scottish construction industry. Construction Management and Economics.
20(8), pp.697–805.
Ainsworth, S. 2002. The ‘feminine advantage’: A discursive analysis of the invisibility of older
women workers. Gender, Work and Organization. 9(5), pp.579–601.
Alvez, S. and English, J. 2017. South African female construction students’ perceptions of gender and
sexism and preparation by their university In: Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, ARCOM - 33rd Annual Conference 2017, Proceeding.
Angouri, J. 2012. ‘The older I get the less I trust people’: Constructing age identities in the workplace.
Pragmatics. 22(2), pp.255–277.
Aspinall, P.J. and Mitton, L. 2008. Operationalising ‘sexual orientation’ in routine data collection and
equality monitoring in the UK. Culture, Health and Sexuality. 10(1), pp.57–72.
Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative
Research. 1(3), pp.385–405.
Banks, P. and Lawrence, M. 2006. The Disability Discrimination Act, a necessary, but not sufficient
safeguard for people with progressive conditions in the workplace? The experiences of younger
people with Parkinson’s disease. Disability and Rehabilitation. 28(1), pp.13–24.
Baxter, J. and Wallace, K. 2009. Outside in-group and out-group identities? constructing male
solidarity and female exclusion in UK builders’ talk. Discourse and Society. 20(4), pp.411–429.
Bergman, B., Larsman, P. and Löve, J. 2014. Psychometric evaluation of the ‘Men’s Polarized
Gender Thinking Questionnaire (MPGQ)’. Gender in Management. 29(4), pp.194–209.
Bilgehan Ozturk, M. 2011. Sexual orientation discrimination: Exploring the experiences of lesbian,
gay and bisexual employees in Turkey. Human Relations. 64(8), pp.1099–1118.
Blackwell, C.W. 2008. Belief in the ‘free choice’ model of homosexuality: A correlate of homophobia
in registered nurses. Journal of LGBT Health Research. 3(3), pp.31–40.
Bowen, P., Govender, R. and Edwards, P. 2014. Structural equation modeling of occupational stress
in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 140(9),
pp.1–14.
Brohan, E., Henderson, C., Little, K. and Thornicroft, G. 2010. Employees with mental health
problems: Survey of UK employers’ knowledge, attitudes and workplace practices.
Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale. 19(4), pp.326–332.

Brown, L.M. 2019. Women in the future of construction. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available
from: https://innovateuk.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/11/women-in-the-future-of-construction/
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. 2007. Business research methods. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Burke, M. 1994. Homosexuality as deviance: The Case of the Gay Police Officer. British Journal of
Criminology. 34(2), pp.192–203.
Bytheway, B. 2005. Ageism and age categorization. Journal of Social Issues. 61(2), pp.361–374.
Cambridge Dictionary. 2020a. Discrimination. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination
Cambridge Dictionary. 2020b. Gender discrimination. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available
from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gender-discrimination
Cambridge Dictionary. 2020c. Sexism. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sexism
Cangiano, A., Shutes, I., Spencer, S. and Leeson, G. 2009. SN 6920 – Migrant Care Workers in
Ageing Societies: Research Findings in the United Kingdom. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020].
Available from: http://doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/6920/mrdoc/pdf/6920report.pdf
Cavill, N. 1999. Purging the industry of racism. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.building.co.uk/news/purging-the-industry-of-racism/6758.article
Chan, P.W. 2013. Queer eye on a ‘straight’ life: deconstructing masculinities in construction.
Construction Management and Economics. 31(8), pp.816–831.
Channar, Z.A., Abbassi, Z. and Ujan, I.A. 2011. Gender Discrimination in Workforce and its
Impact\non the Employees. Pakistan Journal of Commer and Social Sciences. 5(1), pp.177–191.
Chen, H.C., Sheu, L., O’Sullivan, P., ten Cate, O. and Teherani, A. 2014. Legitimate workplace roles
and activities for early learners. Medical Education. 48(2), pp.136–145.
Cheng, C. 1999. Marginalized Masculinities and Hegemonic Masculinity: An Introduction. The

Journal of Men’s Studies. 7(3), pp.295–315.
Ciocirlan, C. and Pettersson, C. 2012. Does Workforce Diversity Matter in the Fight against Climate
Change? An Analysis of Fortune 500 Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management. 19(1), pp.47–62.
CITB. 2017. Changing perceptions: the growing appeal of a career in construction. [Online].
[Accessed …]. Available from: https://www.citb.co.uk/about-citb/construction-industry-
research-reports/search-our-construction-industry-research-reports/careers/changing-
perceptions/#
Clarke, L., Michielsens, E. and Snijders, S. 2018. Misplaced gender diversity policies and practices in
the British construction industry: developing an inclusive and transforming strategy In: Valuing
People in Construction.

Clarke, L., van der Meer, M., Bingham, C., Michielsens, E. and Miller, S. 2009. Enabling and
disabling: Disability in the British and Dutch construction sectors. Construction Management
and Economics. 27(6), pp.555–566.
Construction Industry Council. 2015. A Blueprint for Change. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020].
Available from: http://cic.org.uk/projects/project.php?s=a-blueprint-for-change
Cromwell, J.B. 1997. Cultural discrimination: The reasonable accommodation of religion in the
workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 10(2), pp.155–172.
Dainty, A.R.J. and Bagilhole, B.M. 2005. Guest editorial. Construction Management and Economics.
23(10), pp.995–1000.
Dainty, A.R.J., Bagilhole, B.M. and Neale, R.H. 2000. A grounded theory of women’s career
underachievement in large UK construction companies. Construction Management and
Economics. 18(2), pp.239–250.
Dainty, A.R.J., Bagilhole, B.M., Ansari, K.H. and Jackson, J. 2004. Creating equality in the
construction industry: An agenda for change for women and ethnic minorities. Journal of
Construction Research. 5(1), pp.75–86.
Dewa, C.S. and Lin, E. 2000. Chronic physical illness, psychiatric disorder and disability in the
workplace. Social Science and Medicine. 51(1), pp.41–50.
Downie, M. 2019. Preferential pay protection: Does UK law provide poorer protection to those
discriminated against on grounds of protected characteristics other than gender? International
Journal of Discrimination and the Law. 19(1), pp.4–25.
Drydakis, N. 2015. Sexual orientation discrimination in the United Kingdom’s labour market: A field
experiment. Human Relations. 68(11), pp.1769–1796.
Drydakis, N. 2019. Sexual orientation and labor market outcomes. IZA World of Labor.
Drydakis, N., MacDonald, P., Chiotis, V. and Somers, L. 2018. Age discrimination in the UK labour
market. Does race moderate ageism? An experimental investigation. Applied Economics Letters.
25(1), pp.1–4.
Duncan, C. and Loretto, W. 2004. Never the Right Age? Gender and Age-Based Discrimination in
Employment. Gender, Work and Organization. 11(1), pp.95–115.
Eagly, A.H. 2009. The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of
gender. American Psychologist. 64(8), pp.644–658.
ECITB. 2019. Labour Market Outlook. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.ecitb.org.uk/portfolio-items/labour-market-outlook/
Equality Act 2010. (c.15). [Online]. London: The Stationary Office. [Accessed 17 April 2020].
Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
Farndale, E., Biron, M., Briscoe, D.R. and Raghuram, S. 2015. A global perspective on diversity and
inclusion in work organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
26(6), pp.677–687.

Fellini, I., Ferro, A. and Fullin, G. 2007. Recruitment processes and labour mobility: the construction
industry in Europe. Work, Employment and Society. 21(2), pp.277–298.
Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Lewis, D. and Jones, T. 2013. The ill-treatment of employees with
disabilities in British workplaces. Work, Employment and Society. 27(2), pp.288–307.
Foster, D. and Fosh, P. 2009. Negotiating ‘Difference’: Representing Disabled Employees in the
British Workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 48(3), pp.560–582.
Foster, D. and Scott, P. 2015. Nobody’s responsibility: the precarious position of disabled employees
in the UK workplace. Industrial Relations Journal. 46(4), pp.328–343.
Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. 2004. Young people as teachers and learners in the workplace: challenging
the novice-expert dichotomy. International Journal of Training and Development. 8(1), pp.32–
42.
Gale, A.W. 1994. Women in Non‐traditional Occupations. Women in Management Review. 9(2),
pp.3–14.
George, M. and Loosemore, M. 2019. Site operatives’ attitudes towards traditional masculinity
ideology in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics.
37(8), pp.419–432.
Ghumman, S., Ryan, A.M., Barclay, L.A. and Markel, K.S. 2013. Religious Discrimination in the
Workplace: A Review and Examination of Current and Future Trends. Journal of Business and
Psychology. 28(4), pp.439–454.
Glassdoor. 2019. Diversity & Inclusion Study 2019. [Online]. [Accessed March 2020]. Available
from: https://about-content.glassdoor.com//app/uploads/sites/2/2019/10/Glassdoor-Diversity-
Survey-Supplement-1.pdf
Goldenhar, L.M., Swanson, N.G., Hurrell, J.J., Ruder, A. and Deddens, J. 1998. Stressors and adverse
outcomes for female construction workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 3(1),
pp.19–32.
GOV.UK. 2011. UK's 7th Periodic Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination
Against Women Report. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-7th-periodic-convention-on-the-elimination-
of-all-forms-of-discrimination-against-women-report
GOV.UK. 2012. Discrimination: your rights. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights
GOV.UK. 2019. Employment by Sector. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-
benefits/employment/employment-by-sector/latest#full-page-history
GOV.UK. 2020. Check your State Pension age. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-age
Gregory, D.L. 1990. The Role of Religion in the Secular Workplace. Notre Dame Journal of Law,
Ethics & Public Policy. 4(3), pp.749–764.

Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. 2006. How Many Interviews Are Enough? Field Methods.
18(1), pp.59–82.
Hand, J. 2012. The curious case of marriage/civil partnership discrimination in Britain. International
Journal of Discrimination and the Law. 12(3), pp.166–178.
Huang, C. and Kleiner, B.H. 2001. New developments concerning religious discrimination in the
workplace. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 21(8/9/10), pp.128–136.
Iacuone, D. 2005. ‘Real Men Are Tough Guys’: Hegemonic Masculinity and Safety in the
Construction Industry. The Journal of Men’s Studies. 13(2), pp.247–266.
Jin, M. and Park, J. 2016. Sexual Minority and Employee Engagement: Implications for Job
Satisfaction. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs. 3(1), pp.3–14.
Jones, M. and Williams, M.L. 2015. Twenty years on: lesbian, gay and bisexual police officers’
experiences of workplace discrimination in England and Wales. Policing and Society. 25(2),
pp.188–211.
Jyrkinen, M. and McKie, L. 2012. Gender, age and ageism: experiences of women managers in
Finland and Scotland. Work, Employment and Society. 26(1), pp.61–77.
Kehn, A. and Ruthig, J.C. 2013. Perceptions of Gender Discrimination across Six Decades: The
Moderating Roles of Gender and Age. Sex Roles. 69(5–6), pp.289–296.
Kessler, R.C., Barber, C., Birnbaum, H.G., Frank, R.G., Greenberg, P.E., Rose, R.M., Simon, G.E.
and Wang, P. 1999. Depression In The Workplace: Effects On Short-Term Disability. Health
Affairs. 18(5), pp.163–171.
Khalema, N.E. and Shankar, J. 2014. Perspectives on Employment Integration, Mental Illness and
Disability, and Workplace Health. Advances in Public Health. 2014, pp.1–7.
Kofman, E., Lukes, S., D’Angelo, A. and Montagna, N. 2009. The equality implications of being a
migrant in Britain. [Online]. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. [Accessed April
2020]. Available from: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-
19-the-equality-implications-of-being-a-migrant-in-britain.pdf
Köllen, T. 2016. Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations [Online] (T. Köllen,
ed.). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available from:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4.
Lingard, H. and Saunders, A. 2004. Occupational rehabilitation in the construction industry of

Victoria. Construction Management and Economics. 22(10), pp.1091–1101.
Little, K., Henderson, C., Brohan, E. and Thornicroft, G. 2011. Employers’ attitudes to people with
mental health problems in the workplace in Britain: changes between 2006 and 2009.
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. 20(1), pp.73–81.
Loretto, W., Duncan, C. and White, P.J. 2000. Ageism and employment: controversies, ambiguities
and younger people’s perceptions. Ageing and Society. 20(3), pp.279–302.

Majid, M.A.A., Othman, M., Mohamad, S.F., Lim, S.A.H. and Yusof, A. 2017. Piloting for
Interviews in Qualitative Research: Operationalization and Lessons Learnt. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 7(4), pp.1073–1080.
Malala, J. 2019. Why are South African cities still so segregated 25 years after apartheid? [Online].
[Accessed April 2020]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/21/why-
are-south-african-cities-still-segregated-after-apartheid
Mazerolle, S.M., Borland, J.F. and Burton, L.J. 2012. The Professional Socialization of Collegiate
Female Athletic Trainers: Navigating Experiences of Gender Bias. Journal of Athletic Training.
47(6), pp.694–703.
Mccolgan, A. 2009. Class wars? Religion and (In)equality in the Workplace. Industrial Law Journal.
38(1), pp.1–29.
McGoldrick, A.E. and Arrowsmith, J. 2017. Discrimination by age: the organizational response. In:
Glover, I. and Branine, M. eds. Ageism in Work and Employment. New York: Routledge. Ch. 5.
McGregor, J. 2007. ‘Joining the BBC (British Bottom Cleaners)’: Zimbabwean Migrants and the UK
Care Industry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 33(5), pp.801–824.
McVittie, C., McKinlay, A. and Widdicombe, S. 2003. Committed to (un)equal opportunities?: ‘New
ageism’ and the older worker. British Journal of Social Psychology. 42(4), pp.595–612.
Minichiello, V., Browne, J. and Kendig, H. 2000. Perceptions and consequences of ageism: views of
older people. Ageing and Society. 20(3), pp.253–278.
Mishel, E. 2016. Discrimination against Queer Women in the U.S. Workforce. Socius: Sociological
Research for a Dynamic World. 2, pp.1–13.
Missa, P. 2013. An investigation of the underrepresentation of BMEs in the UK construction industry.

Ph.D thesis, University of Salford.
Missa, P. and Ahmed, V. 2010. Coping or exiting BMES response to discrimination in construction.
In: Proceedings of the Salford Postgraduate Annual Research Conference (SPARC) 2010.
[Online]. Salford: University of Salford, pp.222–237. [Accessed 03 May 2020]. Available from:
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/16822/1/SPARC_2010.pdf#page=223
Müller, W. and Gangl, M. 2003. Transitions from Education to Work in Europe [Online]. Oxford
University Press. Available from:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199252475.001.0001/acprof-
9780199252473.
Murrell, A.J., Olson, J.E. and Frieze, I.H. 1995. Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination: A
Longitudinal Study of Women Managers. Journal of Social Issues. 51(1), pp.139–149.
Naoum, S.G., Harris, J., Rizzuto, J. and Egbu, C. 2020. Gender in the Construction Industry:
Literature Review and Comparative Survey of Men’s and Women’s Perceptions in UK
Construction Consultancies. Journal of Management in Engineering. 36(2).
Nelson, T.D. 2005. Ageism: Prejudice Against Our Feared Future Self. Journal of Social Issues.
61(2), pp.207–221.

Newton, R., Ormerod, M. and Thomas, P. 2007. Disabled people’s experiences in the workplace
environment in England H. Conley, ed. Equal Opportunities International. 26(6), pp.610–623.
Nomis. 2019. Workforce jobs by industry (SIC 2007) – seasonally adjusted. [Online]. [Accessed April
2020]. Available from:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/construct/summary.asp?menuopt=200&subcomp=
Office for National Statistics. 2018. Migrant labour force within the construction industry: June 2018.
[Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalm
igration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19
Office for National Statistics. 2019. Occupation at UK level by sector, industry, age and ethnicity.
[Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeety
pes/adhocs/10663occupationatuklevelbysectorindustryageandethnicity
Ormerod, M. and Newton, R. 2013. Construction as a career choice for young disabled people:
dispelling the myths. Construction Management and Economics. 31(8), pp.928–938.
Ozeren, E. 2014. Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace: A Systematic Review of

Literature. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 109, pp.1203–1215.
Ozturk, M.B. and Tatli, A. 2016. Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: broadening diversity
management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management. 27(8), pp.781–802.
Parry, E. and Tyson, S. 2009. Organizational reactions to UK age discrimination legislation.

Employee Relations. 31(5), pp.471–488.
Powell, A. and Sang, K.J.C. 2013. Equality, diversity and inclusion in the construction industry.
Powell, A. and Sang, K.J.C. 2015. Everyday Experiences of Sexism in Male-dominated Professions:
A Bourdieusian Perspective. Sociology. 49(5), pp.919–936.
Powell, A., Bagilhole, B. and Dainty, A. 2009. How Women Engineers Do and Undo Gender:
Consequences for Gender Equality. Gender, Work & Organization. 16(4), pp.411–428.
Powell, A., Bagilhole, B.M. and Dainty, A.R.J. 2006. The problem of women’s assimilation into UK
engineering cultures: can critical mass work? P. Wynarczyk, ed. Equal Opportunities
International. 25(8), pp.688–699.
Rawlinson, S. 2019. Where are the women in the construction workforce? [Online]. [Accessed April
2020]. Available from: https://www.building.co.uk/communities/where-are-the-women-in-the-
construction-workforce/5097943.article
Robert, P.M. and Harlan, S.L. 2006. Mechanisms of Disability Discrimination in Large Bureaucratic
Organizations: Ascriptive Inequalities in the Workplace. The Sociological Quarterly. 47(4),
pp.599–630.

Rozling, L. 2019. MEN More Likely Than Women To Feel Discriminated At Work On The Grounds
Of Gender. [Online]. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from: https://smeloans.co.uk/gender-
discrimination-in-the-workplace/
Rumens, N. 2013. Queering men and masculinities in construction: towards a research agenda.
Russell, R.J. (ed.). 2002. Guide to Hiring and Retaining Great Civil Engineers. [Online]. [Accessed
10 September 2020]. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Available from:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784406274.
Sang, K.J.C. 2007. Health and well-being in the architectural profession and the influence of gender.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Loughborough.
Sang, K.J.C. and Powell, A. 2012. Gender inequality in the construction industry: Lessons from Pierre
Bourdieu In: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM 2012 -
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference.
Sargeant, M. 2011. Age Discrimination: Ageism in Employment and Service Provision. Surrey:
Gower Publishing Limited.
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J. and Blanck, P. 2009. Is Disability Disabling in All Workplaces?
Workplace Disparities and Corporate Culture. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and
Society. 48(3), pp.381–410.
Seekings, J. 2008. The continuing salience of race: Discrimination and diversity in South Africa.
Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 26(1), pp.1–25.
Siegel, S. and Wang, Y.A. 2018. Broken rainbows: the partisan politics of marriage equality in
Europe. European Politics and Society. 19(4), pp.377–395.
Sipe, S., Johnson, C.D. and Fisher, D.K. 2009. University Students’ Perceptions of Gender
Discrimination in the Workplace: Reality Versus Fiction. Journal of Education for Business.
84(6), pp.339–349.
Sipe, S.R., Larson, L., Mckay, B.A. and Moss, J. 2016. Taking off the Blinders: A Comparative Study
of University Students’ Changing Perceptions of Gender Discrimination in the Workplace From
2006 to 2013. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 15(2), pp.232–249.
Smith, I.P., Oades, L. and McCarthy, G. 2013. The Australian Corporate Closet, Why It’s Still So
Full: A Review of Incidence Rates for Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Gender Identity
Discrimination in the Workplace. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review. 9(1), pp.51–
63.
Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., O’Bannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. 1994. Top
Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and
Communication. Administrative Science Quarterly. 39(3), pp.412–438.
Snape, E. and Redman, T. 2003. Too old or too young? The impact of perceived age discrimination.
Human Resource Management Journal. 13(1), pp.78–89.

Stevens, M., Hussein, S. and Manthorpe, J. 2012. Experiences of racism and discrimination among
migrant care workers in England: Findings from a mixed-methods research project. Ethnic and
Racial Studies. 35(2), pp.259–280.
Taylor, P.E. and Walker, A. 1994. The Ageing Workforce: Employers’ Attitudes towards Older
People. Work, Employment and Society. 8(4), pp.569–591.
Underkuffler, L.S. 1989. Discrimination on the Basis of Religion: An Examination of Attempted

Value Neutrality in Employment. William and Mary Law Review. 30(3), pp.581–626.
Uppal, S. 2005. Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. International Journal of
Manpower. 26(4), pp.336–349.
Vickers, L. 2003. Freedom of Religion and the Workplace: The Draft Employment Equality (Religion
or Belief) Regulations 2003. Industrial Law Journal. 32(1), pp.23–36.
Vickers, L. 2010. Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: An Emerging Hierarchy? Ecclesiastical

Law Journal. 12(3), pp.280–303.
Vickers, L. 2016. Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace. [Online]. 2nd ed.
Oregon: Hart Publishing. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=qm0kDQAAQBAJ
Vickers, L. Religion and the Workplace. The Equal Rights Review. 14, pp.106–118.
Whittle, S. 2002. Respect and Equality: Transsexual and Transgender Rights. [Online]. London:
Routledge-Cavendish. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781843144861
Whittle, S., Turner, L. and Al-Alami, M. 2007. Engendered Penalties: Transgender and Transsexual
People’s Experiences of Inequality and Discrimination. [Online]. Manchester: Communities and
Local Government publications. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
http://www.pfc.org.uk/pdf/engenderedpenalties.pdf
Williams, D.R., Gonzalez, H.M., Williams, S., Mohammed, S.A., Moomal, H. and Stein, D.J. 2008.
Perceived discrimination, race and health in South Africa. Social Science & Medicine. 67(3),
pp.441–452.
Women and Equalities Committee. 2018. Older people and employment. (HC 359, 2017-19).
[Online]. London: Order of the House. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/359/35905.htm
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. 2008. Generational differences in personality and
motivation K. Macky, ed. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23(8), pp.878–890.
Wood, S., Braeken, J. and Niven, K. 2013. Discrimination and Well-Being in Organizations: Testing
the Differential Power and Organizational Justice Theories of Workplace Aggression. Journal of
Business Ethics. 115(3), pp.617–634.
Woodall, J. 2016. Qualitative Data Analysis – Coding & Developing Themes. [Online]. [Accessed
April 2020]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT-EDgwRvRU

Woodhead, L. and Catto, R. 2009. ‘Religion or belief’: Identifying issues and priorities. [Online].
Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. [Accessed April 2020]. Available from:
https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/39906/1/48._%27Religion_or_belief%27_Identifying_issues
_and_priorities.pdf
Worrall, L., Harris, K., Stewart, R., Thomas, A. and McDermott, P. 2010. Barriers to women in the
UK construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 17(3),
pp.268–281.
Wright, T. 2013. Uncovering sexuality and gender: an intersectional examination of women’s

experience in UK construction. Construction Management and Economics. 31(8), pp.832–844.

8 Bibliography
Adebanjo, D., Tickle, M., Laosirihongthong, T. and Mann, R. 2015. A study of the use of business
improvement initiatives: The association with company size and level of national development.
Production Planning and Control. 26(7), pp.507–524.
McAdam, R. and Reid, R. 2001. SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledge management:
comparisons and contrasts. Journal of Knowledge Management. 5(3), pp.231–241.
Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A. and Perks, H. 2011. New product development best practice in SME and
large organisations: theory vs practice. European Journal of Innovation Management. 14(2),
pp.227–251.
Terziovski, M. and Samson, D. 2000. The effect of company size on the relationship between TQM
strategy and organisational performance. The TQM Magazine. 12(2), pp.144–149.

Appendices

Appendix A – Ethics form

Ethics Approval Form

This form should be completed by the student and passed to the supervisor prior to a review
of the possible ethical implications of the proposed dissertation or project.
No primary data collection can be undertaken before the supervisor has approved the
plan.
If, following review of this form, amendments to the proposals are agreed to be necessary,
the student should provide the supervisor with an amended version for endorsement.
The final signed and dated version of this form must be included the dissertation as an appendix.
1. What are the objectives of the dissertation / research project?
1. Develop understanding of the key workforce discrimination areas, in the UK workforce and in
the UK construction industry.
2. Understand sexism, gender discrimination and gender roles in the UK construction industry.
3. Understand age discrimination in the UK construction industry.
4. Investigate how gender roles & gender discrimination and age discrimination affect young,
inexperienced project team members (PTMs).
5. Investigate how current methods of integration affect the development of young, inexperienced
PTMs in the project environment.
6. Develop procedures and provide guidance for better integration of young PTMs for project
managers (PMs).
2. Does the research involve NHS patients, resources or staff? YES / NO (please circle).
If YES, it is likely that full ethical review must be obtained from the NHS process
before the research can start.
3. Do you intend to collect primary data from human subjects or data that are identifiable
with individuals? (This includes, for example, questionnaires and interviews.) YES /
NO (please circle)
If you do not intend to collect such primary data then please go to question 14.
If you do intend to collect such primary data then please respond to ALL the questions
4 through 13. If you feel a question does not apply then please respond with n/a (for not
applicable).

4. What is the purpose of the primary data in the dissertation / research project?
From the evidence and statistics covered in Section 1.1, it is clear that there is a focus on some topics
(e.g. sexism, gender discrimination, ageism (towards older people)) more than others (e.g. young people
(particularly men), development, integration). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to help the
development of young (16-25 y/o), inexperienced (2 years or less) project team members (PTMs), male
and female, who may struggle to integrate into the project environment. The author hypothesises that,
since young PTMs are the future of the construction industry, the currently under-par integration
procedures (from the author’s experience amongst the lack of other literature) and effects of gender
roles, gender discrimination and age discrimination do not bode well for development of their abilities,
and therefore involvement, in their respective projects. Furthermore, the author suggests that a more
efficient system whereby project managers (PMs), as well as all other project members, follow better
integration procedures will benefit young PTMs in the following ways:
others and decreases the likelihood of impacting mental health/wellbeing.
5. What is/are the survey population(s)?
 For the pilot interview: 1 male and 1 female project team members, 16-25 with 2 years or
less experience in the UK construction industry. Therefore, 2 interviews total.
 For the main interview: total of 4 male and 4 female project team members (from 7 large
contracting companies), 16-25 with 2 years or less experience in the UK construction
industry. Therefore, 8 interviews total.
6. How big is the sample for each of the survey populations and how was this sample
arrived at?
For the pilot interview, the author wishes to conduct interviews with two people; one male and
one female. As found by Majid et al. (2017), a pilot interview with two people who fit their

proposed sample was conducted; this gave them sufficient information to improve both their
sample selection and the interview questions. This was useful to determine a suitable number, so
although this project considers both male and female PTMs (which will give different answers),
two people will be sufficient as opposed to two from each gender; this will hopefully allow for
adequate improvement to the interview sample and questions.
For the main interview, the author used 8 participants (4 women and 4 men) who were from 7
different large contracting. This number of interviews was largely due to time constraints; the
author would have preferred more to increase the reliability of the data.
Majid et al. 2017. Piloting for Interviews in Qualitative Research: Operationalization and Lessons Learnt.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), pp.1073-
1080.
7. How will respondents be selected and recruited?
Respondents were approached initially through the companies HR team (email or phone), and
then via LinkedIn. Upon confirmation of their involvement and gathering of their details, they
were contacted individually to arrange a date and time for the interviews, as well as being sent
the informed consent form and interview information sheet.
8. What steps are proposed to ensure that the requirements of informed consent will be
met for those taking part in the research? If an Information Sheet for participants is to
be used, please attach it to this form. If not, please explain how you will be able to
demonstrate that informed consent has been gained from participants.
As noted in Q7, participants were sent the informed consent form, for which they must read, sign
and return.
9. How will data be collected from each of the sample groups?
Semi-structured interviews.
10. How will data be stored and what will happen to the data at the end of the research?

Transcripts were typed up upon the completion of each interview. Copies of each were then made
to allow for editing i.e. for coding purposes. The transcripts were submitted to the marker
attached to the dissertation, however they were not released for public usage with the dissertation
in order to ensure anonymity of participants.
11. How will confidentiality be assured for respondents?
Informed consent form.
12. What steps are proposed to safeguard the anonymity of the respondents?
Only the author will have access to the recorded interviews. These are stored in the author’s
personal files to ensure public usage is prohibited – University of Leeds will be given access to
the recorded interviews should this be necessary, however only the author has access to the names
and companies of the participants.
13. Are there any risks (physical or other, including reputational) to respondents that may
result from taking part in this research? YES / NO (please circle).
If YES, please specify and state what measures are proposed to deal with these risks.
Participants’ anonymity will be ensured (explained in Q12) as to avoid reputational (etc)

damage.
14. Are there any risks (physical or other, including reputational) to the researcher or to
the University that may result from conducting this research? YES / NO (please
circle).
If YES, please specify and state what measures are proposed to manage these risks.
15. Will any data be obtained from a company or other organisation. YES / NO (please
circle) For example, information provided by an employer or its employees.
If NO, then please go to question 18.

16. What steps are proposed to ensure that the requirements of informed consent will be
met for that organisation? How will confidentiality be assured for the organisation?
-
17. Does the organisation have its own ethics procedure relating to the research you intend
to carry out? YES / NO (please circle).
If YES, the University will require written evidence from the organisation that they
have approved the research.
-
18. Will the proposed research involve any of the following (please put a √ next to ‘yes’ or
‘no’; consult your supervisor if you are unsure):
• Vulnerable groups (e.g. children) ? YES NO √

• Particularly sensitive topics ? YES NO √
• Access to respondents via ‘gatekeepers’ ? YES NO √
• Use of deception ? YES NO √
• Access to confidential personal data ? YES NO √
• Psychological stress, anxiety etc ? YES NO √
• Intrusive interventions ? YES NO √
19. Are there any other ethical issues that may arise from the proposed research?
No.
Please print the name of: I/We grant Ethical Approval
student JOSEPH WATTON supervisor

Signed:
(student) (supervisor)
Date 28/09/20 Date
AMENDMENTS
If you need to make changes please ensure you have permission before the primary data
collection. If there are major changes, fill in a new form if that will make it easier for

everyone. If there are minor changes then fill in the amendments (next page) and get them
signed before the primary data collection begins.

Appendix B – Informed consent form
[SEE NEXT PAGE]

Research project: Age, gender and inadequate integration: restricted development of
young project team members in the UK construction industry
Researcher: Joseph Watton

University of Leeds
Please initial box
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated 25/07/20
explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask
questions about the project.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw

at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative
consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question
or questions, I am free to decline.
3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential. I give

permission for members of the research team to have access to my
anonymised responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with the
research materials, and I will not be identified or identifiable in the report or
reports that result from the research.
4. I agree for the data collected from me to be used in future research.
5. I agree to take part in the above research project.
Name of Participant Date Signature

(or legal representative)
Name of person taking consent Date Signature

(if different from lead researcher)
To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
Lead researcher Date Signature

To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated
participant consent form, the letter/pre-written script/information sheet and any other written
information provided to the participants. A copy of the signed and dated consent form should be kept
with the project’s main documents which must be kept in a secure location.
Research Proposal University of Leeds 2019/20
Appendix C – Interview information sheet
[SEE NEXT PAGE]
Joseph Watton Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 122

Interview information sheet
Research project: Age, gender and inadequate integration: restricted development of

young project team members in the UK construction industry

University of Leeds
You are being invited to take part in a research project. Before you decide it is important for you to
understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the
following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. The following information should
answer some of the questions or concerns that you may have with regards to the project, the interview
itself and the use of your contribution. Ask me – the researcher (Joseph Watton) – if there is anything
that is not clear or if you would like more information (contact details at the end of this document).
Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part.
1. What is the purpose of the project?
The main purpose of this research is to help the development of young (16-25 y/o), inexperienced (2
years or less) project team members (PTMs), male and female, who may struggle to integrate into the
project environment. The author hypothesises that, since young PTMs are the future of the construction
industry, the currently under-par integration procedures (from the author’s experience amongst the lack
of other literature) and effects of gender roles, gender discrimination and age discrimination do not help
develop their abilities, and therefore involvement, in their respective projects. Furthermore, the author
suggests that a more efficient system whereby project managers (PMs), as well as all other project
members, follow better integration procedures will benefit young PTMs in the following ways:
others and decreases the likelihood of impacting mental health/well-being.

The aim of this research is:

To investigate how age, gender, current integration methods and company size impact the
development of young (16-25 years old) and inexperienced (2 years or less) project team
members.
This research will last until 28th September 2020 i.e. the deadline for the researcher’s project.
2. Why have I been chosen?
You have been chosen as you fit the particular sample that the researcher aims to analyse, i.e. aged 16-
25, have a total of 2 years or less experience in your UK construction industry role(s), and work / have
worked for a large enterprise (i.e. >250 employees). You are one of 12-14 participants who fit this same
profile.
3. Do I have to take part?
It is completely up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you will
be given this information sheet to keep (and be asked to sign a consent form) and you can still withdraw
at any time without it affecting any benefits that you are entitled to in any way. You do not have to give
a reason.
4. What do I have to do? / What will happened to me if I take part?
 You will be asked questions that will revolve around your personal experiences with gender, age
and integration in the workplace.
 This entire interview is expected to last approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour, and is only intended
to occur once.
 The researcher would have conducted this in an area that was secluded from distractions such as
other people (the entire interview is to be conducted confidentially) and noise – a meeting room (or
similar) in your place of work would have been ideal, however this is not currently applicable due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore a virtual interview using e.g. Skype will be set up.
 The interview uses a ‘semi-structured’ approach – this essentially means that the researcher will
ask the questions that he has on his interview schedule but may ask other questions if he feels it is
necessary to follow up one of your answers.
 The researcher encourages you to take as long as you need answer any question. If the researcher
thinks you’ve said an appropriate amount on a particular question, he will let you know and then

move onto the next question. If the researcher would like you to give more detail, he will ask you
a follow up question if necessary (but will move onto the next question if you’ve said all you can
say, potentially coming back to it later on if needs be).
 The intention with this research is to identify the challenges you’ve faced in terms of gender, age
and integration, so you can take as much time as you like to think about your answers before
answering. If you are unsure about any question at the time of the interview, the researcher will
answer any confusions you may have.
 If there is a particular question you don’t want to answer due to it being too personal, you are free
to let the researcher know this at any time, but a) the interview questions are not aimed to target
any private information about yourself and b) your confidentiality is guaranteed.
5. Will I be recorded, and how will the recorded media be used?
The researcher will use his personal mobile as a recording device. Once this is complete, the audio file
will be later transcribed and then destroyed to ensure confidentiality.
6. What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part?
It is unlikely that you will be uncomfortable answering a particular question – as mentioned, the
researcher does not wish to make you feel uncomfortable, but encourages you to open up and feel free
to discuss anything on your mind. Only you and the researcher will know your identity.
7. What are the benefits of taking part?
Although there are no immediate benefits for you and the other participants, you will be contributing
greatly to an area that has little focus towards it. The issues that you discuss are likely to be felt by many
in your position, and so if these are made known, it will contribute to improving the way that these
issues are managed. This will therefore help support young project team members of the future in your
position.
8. How will the research data be used, distributed and stored?
Your transcribed interview will be analysed as part of the research, which will then be completed and
submitted to the University of Leeds. Should the researcher continue research-based work in future, he
may use the information covered in this research. However until then, this will be kept and stored by
the University of Leeds. Information on the University of Leeds’s Privacy Notice can be found via the
following link: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/data_protection.html

9. What will happen to my personal information?
Your name and other personal details will remain anonymous, however the researcher will use your
gender and approximate total time spent in your role(s). Your age may also be used, but will be referred
to in the research paper with anonymity e.g. ‘teenager’ or ‘twenties’. There will be 12-14 participants
in total, meaning 6-7 men and 6-7 women. These all have the same criteria as you (16-25, <= 2 years’
experience), thereby maximising your anonymity.
10. What will happen to the results of the research project?
 Your recorded interview will need to be accessed for the remainder of the project.
 The research paper will identify you in the research paper as e.g. “Participant A – female, twenties,
1 years’ experience”. This means that you will not be identifiable in any reports or publications (the
participant letter is used to ensure everyone’s interview is organised as per the researcher’s needs).
 If anything comes up in the interview that could require reporting that has not been reported already,
e.g. physical harassment, there is a possibility that this will be relayed to a competent member of a
professional organisation that can deal with this situation.
 There will be consequences to the participant should they not follow the confidential agreement.
 The results for this research project will be released later in the year (2020), and you will be sent a
copy if you wish.
 The data collected during the course of the project may be used by the researcher and others for
additional and subsequent research.
11. What type of information will be sought from me and why is the collection of this information
relevant for achieving the research project’s objectives?
You are required to provide answers to the research questions, to allow for analysis and therefore
discussion/conclusions of the research. Essentially, your participation is vital to the reliability of this
research. The discussion/conclusions will address the aim, objectives and the researcher’s hypotheses
of the project to determine how these compare, and will hopefully contribute towards the body of
knowledge.
12. Who is organising/funding the research?

This research is to be submitted to the University of Leeds to partially fulfil the requirements of the
researcher’s MSc, however no organisation is funding or sponsoring this research.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Contact for further information

Mobile number: 07398 223478
Email: [email protected]
Close
Thanks for taking the time to read through this information sheet. You will be given a copy of this sheet
and a signed consent form to keep.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Version (for researcher use only)
Project title Document Version # Date

Age, gender and inadequate integration: Interview information 01 04/05/20
restricted development of young project team sheet
members in the UK construction industry

Appendix D – Interview schedule
Introduction
 Introduction of interview and interviewer – set the scene of the research i.e. “I’m conducting
a study to see if there are any links between age, gender and integration of young PTMs, and
how these affect their development into the project environment. Do you need any
clarification on these factors? I’m going to need you to answer these questions keeping the
feelings you felt when you started in mind, and remember that you can take as long as you
need to think and answer. If I feel that you’ve given enough detail I’ll let you know, and we’ll
move onto the next question. Do you understand?”
 Introduction of the interviewee – age, position, company, time they’ve been in their role(s).
Part A – AGE
1. Think back to when you began your engineering career. Can you talk about some factors
related to your age that (1) negatively / (2) positively affected your development, both
personally and as part of the project team?
a. Why were these unhelpful/good for your development?
b. The person or people that come to mind when you think about these challenges; what
role, gender and rough age were they? What kind of character did they have?
Part B – GENDER
2. Think back to when you began your engineering career. What kind of gender environment
was it?
3. As a man/woman in this environment you described, can you talk about any gender-based
challenges you faced? (If not) Do you think the environment positively affected your
development?
a. How did these affect your development? Why was it helpful for your development?
b. The person or people that come to mind when you think about these challenges; what
role, gender and rough age were they? What kind of character did they have?
4. Can you give any examples of some challenges your (1) male / (2) female colleagues have
experienced in this type of environment based on their gender?

o (for men) i.e. those who may not fit into this type of gender stereotype / mix well
with this type of gender environment
5. What, if at all, have your managers/peers done to combat these examples of gender
discrimination/roles in this environment you’ve described?
a. Do you think they understand the importance of gender discrimination/roles?
6. What do you think can be done to help young (1) male / (2) female PTMs as they enter the
workforce to prevent or reduce these gender-related challenges we’ve talked about?
Part C – INTEGRATION
7. Think about the most helpful tasks that your PMs and other PTMs gave you in order to
improve your development / understand the project close to when you began. Can you give
me 3 or 4 examples of these?
a. Why do you think these tasks helped the most?
8. Think about the least helpful tasks that your PMs and other PTMs gave you in order to
improve your development / understand the project close to when you began. Can you give
me 3 or 4 examples of these?
a. Why do you think these tasks helped the least?
9. Are there any things that stick out that your team did that made you feel more valued as part
of the project team over time?
a. How long did it take to feel fully valued as part of the project team? Has this changed
or fluctuated in any way?
10. If you could give any advice to your PMs/superiors when you began, what are some examples
of what they could have done to better integrate and prepare you into the project
team/environment?
11. If you could give any advice to yourself when you began, or to other young PTMs, what are
some examples of what you would have done differently to better integrate yourself into the
project team/environment? Additionally, what things do you think you did well that could be
passed onto other young PTMs?
Close

 Is there anything we haven’t covered today that you’d feel is necessary to be discussed in
relation to what we’ve talked about? So any other impacts to your development that don’t fall
under the age, gender or integration topics we’ve spoken about?

Appendix E – Interview transcripts and participant profiles
Participant Gender Age Time in role(s)

A Female Early 20s <1 year
B Male Early 20s <1 year
C Male Early 20s >1 year
D Female Early 20s >1 year
E Male Early 20s >1 year
F Male Early 20s >1 year
G Female Early 20s >1 year
H Female Early 20s >1 year

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE – EDITED BY THE MODULE LEADER.
Participant A
NOTE: Introductory, and last, few minutes of chatting left out.
ID Text Codes Theme
JW: So as you know I'm Joe, and I go to University of Leeds and I study
engineering project management. So for my dissertation project
I'm conducting a study to see if there are any links between age,
gender and integration of young project team members like
yourself, and how these affect their development in the- into the
project environment. So I'll explain these key terms at the start of
each section just so what the general focus is. So as I emailed you,
I don’t know if you saw but as I emailed you, when answering these
questions just focus on the feelings that you had at the start of your
engineering career, as opposed to the ones that you've had maybe
towards the end of it, so in the first few weeks, months, that kind
of thing. So just get- with each question I'll give you a bit of time
to think about it and, just have a think if you can about when you
began as opposed to the later months so, as I say you can take as
long as you need to answer to think, take as long as you need to
think about what you need to answer as well, and if I feel that
you’ve gone into enough detail I’ll just let you know, and then we
can move on to the next question so. Sound good? That all alright?
A: Perfect.
JW: Good. So, if you could just say your name and age please.
A: My name’s [name], and I’m [age].
JW: And can you give me your company, all of the companies that
you’ve worked for, if it's just if it's just one that's fine, the position-
A: I’ve only worked- Sorry.
JW: It’s alright. So the company, position and how long you've been in
your role.
A: Ok so I’ve worked with [company], I did a summer placement in
the summer of 2019, that was two months long, and then I did a
placement year from 2019 to 2020 which was meant to be eleven
months long but it was only seven because of the virus, yeah seven.
JW: Ok, that’s fine. Ok so, the first section then is age, so just a couple
of terms, just so you get the general understanding of what I’m
focusing towards. So ageism is the unfair treatment of people
because of their age, so this is in a general sense like a particular
age demographic so this is primarily towards older people and
towards younger people, because they’re either side of the

demographic and age discrimination is unfair treatment of a person

because of their age, so this is towards an individual, again this is
primarily older and younger, ok?
A: Yeah.
JW: So that’s the general focus, the things need think about in relation AGE
Q1 to yourself ok? So, ok question 1 then – think back to when you
began your engineering career. Can you talk about some factors
related to your age that negatively affected your development, both
personally and as part of the project team?
A: When I started my summer placement, to be honest I had a very
positive experience. The whole thing went quite smoothly and I
[inaudible] a week later there was two placement students, me Additional (female) Supportive female
another girl, and she had started a week earlier so when I went there placement support colleagues
on my first day I was just very nervous but she helped me a lot
which was good and great, so that was good because she was
obviously the same age as me and we stuck together for the whole
time. It was only two months, so it wasn’t that long. But when I
started my year-long placement, that was definitely not as easy I Only female Lack of female
don't think, because when I first started I was the only girl and also placement – less easy colleagues
I was the only placement student, there was another apprentice who
was 20 I think? But I felt quite overwhelmed. I'm not sure if that Overwhelmed Lack of support
was the age thing to be honest. It definitely did add to it, but it was
just everyone knew what was going on and I felt like in both
instances I was thrown into it quite quickly. I don't really know Not enough time to Lack of support
how to explain it but basically, I didn't really have enough time to adapt
adapt, I was just expected to know a lot of things *chuckles* which
I didn’t. So the beginning was quite overwhelming, and I definitely
feel like a lot of the older people, especially, not people in there Old people Old workforce
30s and 40s, but I mean the really old people *chuckles*, they’re condescending
quite condescending and mean sometimes, which is not great.
JW: Yep. Yeah that's fine so that was, so your first experience was
positive, on your summer placement and then-
A: Yeah.
JW: …Your industrial placement was more, negative, is that what
you’re saying?
A: Yeah.
JW: Ok.
A: Yes, yes, basically.
JW: Ok. So, why do you think the first experience in your summer
Q1a placement was good for your development? Why was it helpful for
it?
A: Well it was my first experience ever in engineering and I didn't Larger projects – more Diverse workforce
really know what to expect so I went into it open-minded, and it diverse workforce
was for a really big project. It was with Crossrail. I was working at

one of their stations. And it was just really good because Young, female- Diverse workforce
*chuckles* there was a lot of girls in the team and everyone was friendly workforce – / Young
quite young. I think the oldest person there might have been in their better environment workforce
late 30s, which was really great. Everyone was very welcoming,
and it was very international as well, because I'm not English, I'm Multi-national Diverse workforce
Romanian, and I sometimes feel a bit strange working with English workforce better
people. I just feel like I’m not on their level, I don’t know. It’s
probably all in my head to be honest but there was a lot of different
people there like Spanish people, Portuguese people so that helped
as well. And, I don't know everyone was just very friendly. It was Welcoming
a very friendly environment, and no one really expected me to Friendly workforce –
know everything, because whenever I don’t know something I feel easier integration
silly asking, “oh no what if it’s a stupid question,” but in my
summer placement nobody felt like that. It was fine, I could just
ask anything. So that was great and, sorry can you ask me the
question again?
JW: Yeah, that’s fine. So your summer placement was good so that's
Q1a why it was helpful for your development, and then with your
industrial placement how was that unhelpful for your development,
cont
why do you think that was bad for it?
A: Ok, so in my industrial placement it was a completely different
project. We were building a new building for the Royal College of Older team for smaller Project size
Art, and most of the people in the team were quite old *chuckles* project
The senior engineer was quite young I think, I don't think he had Poor mentor Lack of support
very good social skills. I found it quite hard to, interact with him
and I just I don't think he was a good teacher in a way, a good
mentor. He was the one who was meant to be my boss. He was
meant to guide me and show me what to do and he was just not
very good at it, but I don't necessarily think it was just his fault Understaffed – weak Poorly managed
because he was the only civil engineer there, so I think he was quite mentoring project
overwhelmed about his own things. He didn't really have time to
mentor me. And the previous placement student, I’d heard a lot Lack of preparation Lack of support
about him, he was really good and quite on it, but obviously he was for placement student
there a whole year so I think when he left them I came *chuckles*
it was a shock for everyone because I was not really ready
*chuckles* at all. That wasn't very good and I felt like in general,
in my industrial placement, I don't think I learned a lot, but I was Lack of Lack of support
meant to be a site engineer and I don't think I did all of site preparation/support
engineering. I didn’t really do that many surveys or anything for placement student
because no one really had the time. Nick was the senior engineer
and showed me how to do somethings at the beginning, but things
got busier and obviously the project wasn't good. It wasn't going to Busy project – weak Poorly managed
finish on the deadline. We kept missing every deadline, so he was mentoring project
quite stressed. He didn’t really have time to show me things. So I

don’t feel like I’ve picked up any good civil engineering things, if Poor experience Lack of support
anything I’ve learnt more about project management and I did a bit overall
of design management too which is a lot better. And I think when
young people go into projects, they don't know what to expect, but Young people need Lack of empathy
also I feel like you can't just throw them there. You need to provide time to adapt
them with a mentor and have time to deal with them if that makes Young people need Lack of support
sense. mentoring
JW: Yeah.
A: Because in my summer placement there was a graduate girl who
was very good. I would help her a lot and she knew what she was
doing, and she would show me what to do, what not to do. That
made it a lot better. But this guy *chuckles* it wasn’t his fault I
think he was just quite busy.
JW: Yep, that’s fine. As I say we're going to integration topics later.
A: Oh sorry.
JW: No it's fine, just to let you know you can have a think about that a
Q1b bit later on as well but that's fine, so say you want for this bit, it’s
all related. When you think about these kind of challenges, you've
given me a couple of examples, but what kind of character did the
people have? The people that stick out in your positive experiences
with regards to age and the people that stick out with regards to
your negative experiences, what character differences did they
have?
A: Everyone, as I said in my first job, was quite young, but even the Younger management Younger
oldest person I think which he was a project manager and he was more understanding workforce
in his late 30s, he was just very understanding. He would always
back his team up because obviously there were other
subcontractors that would be like “no you did this wrong it wasn’t
our fault,” and he’d be like “no listen it was you” *chuckles* So I Support good for Supportive male
don’t know, he just backed his team up which really helped. And encouragement colleagues
he never tried to belittle anyone. Whenever I was there, I never
really felt like I was that much younger than him, that much
younger than anyone there, but was quite an equal level, which was
really good. And then in my industrial placement there was a lot of Old people poor Old workforce
older people like all the senior management, who were, quite old team/social skills
*chuckles* And I just felt like they were quite condescending a lot
of the time. They thought they were so much more important than
anyone else onsite which to be fair ok maybe they were but you
don’t really need to show that – to be part of a team and to be a
team member you need to at least pretend *chuckles* that you’re
all on an equal level. But they were just really bad, I just felt like Superiority complex Old workforce
they had a superiority complex, and a lot of the time I felt like the
way they talked to me would be quite, rude, and I wouldn’t really
stand for it. I think that’s one of the reasons they didn’t like me that

much because I had a bit of an attitude *chuckles* Because if

you’re not going to be nice to me I’m not going to be nice to you.
And I remember my project manager was talking about it one time, Old have poor Old workforce
and he was saying how he thinks that young people get so offended perception of young
by everything, and he was saying how he sent an email to the girl
downstairs, who was also quite young, and her reply was “very
rude,” and he didn’t think his email was rude, and I was just sat in
the corner listening to all this and I was like “yeah but, Kevin Old – stubborn and Old workforce /
whenever you send the email there’s never hi [name], please, thank less aware of Lack of empathy
you, it’s always [name] do this,” which is quite rude. And he’d behaviour
listen to that and he understood it, but he ignored it *chuckles* and
I was just stood there like “wow, cool, selective hearing I see.”
JW: *chuckles*
A: So I think, old people seem to think we’re the problem but then,
it’s not really like that *chuckles*
JW: Yeah, that’s fine. Ok, so that's all I've got for age. So it's quite a GENDER
Q3 briefly explored area so that's why there's not a lot of focus towards
that. So next section is gender then. So as a woman you probably
understand a few of these terms. So gender discrimination is a
situation in which someone is treated less well because of their sex,
usually when a woman is treated less well than a man. Sexism is
the belief that women are less able to carry a particular task than
men, so a slight difference. Gender roles is the shared beliefs that
applies to individuals on the basis of their socially identified sex.
So this comes under masculinity and femininity, so these are
obviously qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men
or of women. Ok, so they’re the key terms to have a little think
about whilst you’re answering the questions. Similarly to question
one then, think back to when you began your engineering career.
Can you talk about any challenges related to your gender that
negatively affected your development, both personally and as part
of the project team?
A: So in my summer placement- to be honest in both of them I never Not affected by being Equal
necessarily felt like I was negatively affected just by being a a woman
woman. Obviously people would make jokes about it, but it was Jokes made about Sexist remarks
only jokes, so I didn’t think too deeply about it. And also, because being a woman
I don’t really have a lot of experience in the industry, I can’t really
talk about it that much if that makes sense. I feel like gender
inequality really gets a feel when you [are] advancing your career,
because obviously someone who may have started at the same time
as me, a male, would probably get paid more, just have more of the
advantage over me. But when I first started, the graduate girl, I Unequal pay at low Sexism
overheard her talking to someone else saying that she was very level
annoyed because another graduate boy who had started the same

time as her had a much higher salary than her, and she got very
annoyed about that and went and spoke to I’m not sure who to get
that sorted out and they increased her salary too. So I think women
are definitely treated unequally, but like I said, just because I don’t
really have that much experience I haven’t really felt it. I never Not affected by being Equal
really felt like anyone was ever trying to treat me differently a woman
because I was a woman either which was good, really good.
JW: Yeah that’s fine-
A: I don’t think I’ve ever…
JW: So did you take offence at all to the jokes he said?
A: *chuckles* Basically one time, recently actually in February, I did
my first aid at work course, and I was really happy because I’ve
done it, and then one of the people, I can’t remember what his job
title was, he was in my office, he was quite friendly towards me.
He was like “you’re never going to be a first aider” and I was like
“excuse me, I’ve just passed the course what do you mean?” and
he was like “no you’re never going to be one because if anything
ever happens to anyone on site you’re just going to be like ‘ahh’”
*chuckles* Which to be fair I think that says more about me as a
person because I’m quite OCD and quite clean, I don’t really know
how to put it-
JW: You say you, sorry-
A: Yeah go on.
JW: You say he said you’re never going to become…?
A: A first aider-
JW: Oh ok.
A: Because he didn’t think I’d be able to perform as a first aider, but
I don’t think he said it as an…
JW: Right.
A: Offence towards me being a woman I think he said it as a person
because I’m quite like “ew” *chuckles*
JW: Yeah, ok.
A: …With that kind of thing. I’m quite clean, I don’t like getting dirty Displeasure to dirty Personality
which is awful – being on site wasn’t that great for me especially site works dependent
during winter, which is also why I think I enjoyed my summer
placement the weather played a big factor in the winter it was just
quite hard to be on site with all the cold and rain and stuff.
JW: Yeah.
A: But, I felt offended when he first said it cos I was like “what do
you mean” but then when he explained it I was like “that’s quite
funny fair enough,” so I think I’m quite defensive but when people
explain themselves I’m like “oh ok fair enough.” I mean usually
they don’t mean to be offensive.

JW: Yeah, that’s fine. So, you say you had a fairly positive experience
Q3 then. Can you talk about any challenges related to your gender that
positively affected your development? So this might have played
cont
to your advantage being a woman. Can you think of anything that
actually did play to your advantage? Obviously you mentioned that
there was one woman that, the graduate engineer, that had to ask
to get a salary put up to be equal to the…
A: Yeah.
JW: So is there anything that you think put you in a better position
because you're a woman? Anything at all? Don’t have to have an
answer for this obviously. If there isn’t anything then, that’s it
that’s fine.
A: No I don’t, I can’t think of anything, sorry. No advantage to being No female
a woman advantage
JW: No don’t be sorry, that’s fine.
A: I mean I’ll keep thinking about it and if I do if you have anything
I can, we can go back to it *chuckles*
JW: No it’s fine. So the negative experiences you've had then, why do
Q3a you think these were unhelpful for your development? In relation
to your gender.
A: I just feel like it’s quite belittling again. Just because I’m a woman, Equal abilities Desires equality
doesn’t mean I can’t do things. Personally I don’t think I’ve really
experienced it because, all the time I was just told, “do this do that”
whatever, so I was never really asked “oh do you need a man to
help you” or whatever. Usually I would complain *chuckles* Help from men when Support
usually I would complain about carrying the total station onto site required
because it was quite heavy *chuckles* and I would ask the
apprentice for help to do that which…
JW: *chuckles*
A: But I don’t think I’ve ever felt negatively impacted by it and Generally neither Equal
positively either I don’t know I don’t really think I’ve noticed it so positive or negative
far, which is a good thing? impact
JW: Yeah that’s fine, that is good. So the people that you think about
Q3b with regards to some of these challenges either that you've
experienced or your colleagues, what kind of character did these
people have?
A: So, everyone on my first job they were all quite welcoming and
friendly and nice, and then also the tradespeople on site because
again, I’m Romanian, and a lot of the people on site are Romanian,
so I got along with them quite well. As well I think I would be quite Initially intimidating Non-inclusive
intimidated by that just by being a woman, because even in my first
few days I felt quite awkward walking on site on my own. But
obviously once they knew that I’m Romanian we started to have
banter and stuff *chuckles* So that’s quite good. The characters of

the people, I think everyone in my industrial placement, they’re all

old-fashioned and narrow-minded, and I think a lot of them they Narrow minded old Old workforce
[inaudible] a lot harder than everyone else because they, our offices people
were divided. There was a production team which was everyone, Old – competitiveness Old workforce
like site managers, site engineers, everyone had to do something between departments
onsite, and then there was the operations team which was the
project management side and the quantity surveying [inaudible]
people, and there was definitely a divide between the two there and
everyone thought they were better than the other one, and the
whole time I was just stood there like “I don’t really get it. Ok you
think you’re more important, but we are a team. We’re meant to
work as a team.” That was quite strange I thought. I didn’t really
experience that on my summer placement… Young – all a team Young workforce
(Q1)
JW: Yeah.
A: At all to be honest *chuckles*…
JW: So the kind of character was similar to the ones when you were
talking about your age challenges then was it?
A: Yeah, definitely. Old cause both age and Old workforce
gender challenges
JW: A link, an overlap is there?
A: Mmm, yeah.
JW: Ok, that’s fine then. So can you give some examples of any similar
Q4 challenges your female colleagues have experienced based on their
gender? You touched upon it, but any other challenges that stick
out that your colleagues have faced in terms of their gender other
than the ones you’ve spoken about?
A: Well another girl who was on placement, I can’t remember who
she was working with, she was a trainee site manager, and she was
saying that there was a tradesperson on site who would never take Young woman not Commanding
her seriously just because she was young and a girl, so she told her taken seriously authority
manager a few times, because obviously she’s only a placement
student, she doesn’t really have that much power but, it got to her.
Her manager was like “we’ve had issues with him before, just fire
him,” and she was like “woah,” and he was like “no, go do it, it’s
fine,” and she was like “ok, I’m going to leave it and if he does it
again then I will do it.” And obviously he made fun of her again,
and I don’t know exactly what he did but it bothered her again and
she was like “no that’s it, you’re gone, you’re fired.” And ever
since that happened, because obviously word got round Taken seriously when Commanding
[inaudible], everyone was taking her really seriously. So that was authority recognised authority
really good for her *chuckles*
JW: Yeah *chuckles*
A: And she sounded quite scary as well apparently, so.

JW: Yeah.
A: Yeah.
JW: Ok.
A: So I think in general women aren’t really taken seriously. And then
there was a time actually this year when I was on placement,
because in the morning I would change at work, obviously I’d put Derogatory comments Sexist remarks
on my normal clothes then I would change into my site clothes, from site workers
and one time apparently I was wearing something tight, and people behind back
started making comments about it, and someone onsite actually
told me about it because, he would always stand up for me and he
was like “and I had a go at them [name], I told them never to do
that again, how dare they do that,” and no they’d never speak about
it again and I’m like “good, thank you.” So I think that happened,
obviously I didn’t hear it but if that man hadn’t told me I wouldn’t
have known so. Maybe things do happen but I’m just not really
aware of them *chuckles*
JW: Yeah.
A: That bothered me a little, course it bothered me because I didn’t Uncomfortable Non-inclusive
really know who it was, I didn’t really know who to, avoid or just,
give a stare to *chuckles* …
JW: Yeah.
A: …when I saw them…
JW: Ok. That’s fine. Ok, can you think of any challenges that your male
Q4 colleagues, now this might be a bit different to what you'd usually
expect, but anything your male colleagues have experience based
on their gender? So thinking about gender roles in regard to
masculinity, qualities or attributes regarded as characteristics of
men, any people that stick out that didn't fit that gender role? … So
again that would be a challenge based on gender for men. That kind
of thing.
A: Again I don’t think anyone that I’ve worked with necessarily fit
that profile. There was a few, [in] senior management, in my Masculine Masculine
industrial project, that were very masculine shall we say, and they management behaviour
didn’t really enjoy their [inaudible] that much. I don’t know if that
was a challenge for them necessarily just because they were so
senior I don’t really think they cared that much.
JW: As in anyone that doesn't fit that profile, did they have any
challenges because of the fact that they weren't a typical
masculine?
A: Oh ok. Not that I’m aware of to be honest, I don’t think so… No challenges for men Male advantage
JW: Ok.
A: I think it would definitely affect younger people because they’re
likely starting out in the industry, but like I said just because these Old – less care about Old workforce
behaviour

people are so senior, they’re just at a point that they didn’t really
care anymore *chuckles* [inaudible].
JW: Yeah that’s fine. Ok, so what, if at all, have your managers or peers
Q5 done to combat these examples of gender discrimination in the
typically masculine environment?
A: Oh my god, I don’t think they’ve done anything at all *chuckles* No focus on gender No gender
That sounds bad. Ok so, during my industrial placement there was issues solutions
the… I don’t remember what it was called, not women in
engineering, there was another day that celebrated gender equality
in engineering, I’m sorry I can’t remember the name of it…
JW: That’s ok.
A: Just something like that. And we were told to do things that Gender equality day Non-inclusive
celebrate it and a lot of the men, well everyone in the office – there made fun of by men
was only me and another woman, the site administrator – and
everyone in the office was just making fun of it, and they were just
saying that it wasn’t that important, and I was just stood there like
“ok…” Again I don’t really understand the mentality of “just
because I don’t think it’s important and it’s not important we’re
not going to do it [inaudible] we’re just going to ignore it.”
Especially because work was quite stressful, so it would be nice to No focus towards No well-being
do something to relax or celebrate something [inaudible] And they employee well-being focus
were like that about everything, Christmas and everything, and I
struggled to understand that mentality. “I get it, it’s work, you don’t
enjoy it so we can make it enjoyable we can try and celebrate
things,” so I really don’t think a lot of things were done, at all to…
JW: Yep.
A: Yeah.
JW: To combat discrimination…
A: …combat discrimination *chuckles*
JW: Ok.
A: Yeah.
JW: Yeah, that’s fine then. Your managers and your peers, do you think
Q5a they understand the importance of gender discrimination and
gender roles and how it can affect people?
A: No *chuckles* No I definitely don’t think they do, I feel like a lot No understanding of Lack of empathy
of people at work in my industrial year they’re all narrow-minded gender issues
and quite, I just I don’t really think they understood what happens
to be honest *chuckles* because mental illness as well, I don’t No understanding of Lack of empathy
think it was something that they ever got to understand, which was mental well-being
quite strange because my manager that I was telling you about
before, Kevin, who was saying that we’re quite rude, he was a
mental health first aider and I was always quite surprised by that
because he never really struck me as someone who you’d be able
to talk to about anything just because he’s quite, [inaudible] that’s

the only way, the way I see it is the only way. So, I don’t think they
understand it and also because I think for a lot of them when they
started, things were so much harder, for whatever reason, because
the job was harder back in the day or whatever. They think we
should be really, really thankful for the technology we have
nowadays, so they don’t understand it, just because they haven’t
[inaudible] but I don’t really think that’s an excuse for them. Just
open up sometimes *chuckles* get with it.
JW: *chuckles* Yeah, that’s ok. So what do you think can be done to
Q6 help young male and young female project team members,
obviously for your case primarily, what can be done to help young
female project team members as they enter the workforce to
prevent or reduce these challenges that are gender-related, that
we’ve spoken about?
A: I think to be honest *chuckles* I think a lot of it has to do with, the Environment most Diverse workforce
environment [and] the people that you’re working with, because I important
had such a positive experience in my summer placement and such
a negative one in my industrial placement. I think before, HR or Better preparation
whoever puts you on a project I think they need to, actually check Assign placements to
the people that are working there and see, whoever they assign you non-busy site
with has the time to actually deal with you. Because also another
thing that I experienced quite often, even if I didn’t have something
to do or if I had something to do that I didn’t really know how to
do, I wouldn’t really want to ask anyone because I knew they were
quite busy, and I didn’t really want to bother them, even though
they should help me. Just because, if they do help me obviously
they can [inaudible] Because I can learn it and I can help them, and Better preparation
I think a lot more can be done just making sure that the project Poor integration
team is ready to have a new person, a new young person, and able procedures when busy
to help them. Because I think in general we’re just, overlooked,
we’re just, expected to fit in *chuckles* and, that’s it.
JW: Yeah, ok. Ok so that’s the section on gender done. So Part C is INTEGRATION
Q7 integration. So I’ve defined integration as the ways in which you
are incorporated into the project team by your project managers or
supervisors, and the other project team members. And value is the
level of importance you have to your project team members and to
the project as a whole. So think about them things when you’re
answering these questions. So question 6 – think about the most
helpful tasks, so the most helpful tasks, that your project managers
and other project team members gave you in order to improve your
development and understand the project close to when you began.
So take as long as you need to think about that. Can you give me 3
or 4 examples of these, when you’re ready?
A: Ok…

JW: Or just as many as you can think. Doesn’t have to be 3 or 4, just

aim for that number.
A: So in my first project, in my summer project, I was taken around First day – project and Project
site by a site engineer who knew everything, and I think that really site understanding understanding
helped because obviously, on my first day I was really on it, I was tasks / site
like “ok I need to learn this, I need to know things and listen to understanding
everyone.” So I think that really helped because again it was a tasks
massive site and there was minus 8 levels, and it was quite a lot to
take in on my first day but then at the same time, just because the
person who was walking me around knew so much about the Good mentor Effective
project that really helped me because, I got to know everything mentoring
about the project, well, as much as they knew anyway. And then,
because afterwards I was expecting the same thing on my industrial Mentor/support needs Effective
placement, that didn’t happen. I was taken around by a project project and site mentoring
manager who didn’t know anything *chuckles* we got lost on site knowledge
he didn’t know how to go up the stairs and I was just like “ok.” So
that was a bit strange. But that really helped. So then what else has
happened… in my industrial placement, I would go on site with the
senior engineer, whenever he could make the time to show me
things and everything. I think he really put his heart into it. I don’t
know how to say it but, whenever he, he had a bit of time he would
actually try to, show me how to do things and stuff. It’s just, he
didn’t really have the time a lot of the time, and when we were in Mentor/support needs Effective
the office he couldn’t really explain things. He couldn’t really office tasks knowledge mentoring
explain CAD to me if that makes sense. He had [inaudible] on site
he was much better at explaining things, so I think that helped with
my development, my site development, my site skills? *chuckles*
JW: Yeah.
A: But I just didn’t really get a lot of that because he was busy a lot of
the time which was, not very good.
JW: So obviously there’s the site aspect and there’s the office aspect,
like you say your CAD and things like that, all the things that you
do inside the office as well. Anything that your project managers
or you say your senior engineers, anything that they gave you to do
in the office that you thought was helpful when you began?
A: I had to do quite a lot of sample sheets, which I think are design Sample sheets Project
management? Which was quite helpful. It was quite good for me understanding
as well because it was helping me understand the project a lot tasks
better. I had to do them in both my placements, so that was quite
nice *chuckles* I think it helped with documents. I know how to Emails Improving
do better emails now, more professional emails, just because I had interpersonal
to email a lot of people. Also, on my industrial placement, because Good people skills skills
I think I was one of the few people who have good people skills
*chuckles* whenever we had anyone important coming on site, the

actual, Royal College of Art team there, part of the construction

industry, they would ask me to walk around with them *chuckles*
just because I was quite friendly, compared to everyone else. So I
think that helped my, people skills, which is always good because People skills lacking Better people
I think that’s definitely lacking in the construction industry in industry skills (Q10)
*chuckles*
JW: Ok, yeah that’s fine. So why do you think these tasks helped the
Q7a most? Generally why do you think these tasks were the best for
your development when you began?
A: So like I said, walking around site with someone who knew just Confidence Confidence
made me feel a lot more confident, just because I’d been there with
the person, I would know what [inaudible] do this, make sure
you’re that bad. And I just think it made me more confident just
walking around site on my own and things. And then, obviously Everyday life help Confidence
the people skills and the writing email skills that just can help my
everyday life as well so that’s quite good. Site skills, to be honest
I don’t know if I want to go into site *chuckles* I don’t know if I
want to go into contracting, I would rather go in consulting, so I
don’t know if that’s going to help in the future. It’s probably going
to help out this year in Uni. And obviously CAD, I need to focus CAD Project / site
on CAD if I want to go into consulting. That would’ve been good understanding
if he could’ve helped me out more with that *chuckles* but oh tasks
well.
JW: Right, so you didn’t get the help you needed in the office
environment, no?
A: No. Definitely not. Lack of support in Lack of support
office/project
environment
JW: The things like actual engineering-based, so obviously you said
you got better at your people skills and your writing emails and all
that, but in terms of your engineering expertise in the office, so
things like CAD as you say-
A: Oh yeah.
JW: You didn’t, that wasn’t…
A: No.
JW: No? Ok.
A: Definitely not *chuckles*
JW: Yeah. No that’s fine. So, on the subject of that, think about the least
Q8 helpful tasks that your project managers and other project team
members gave you in order to improve your development or
understand the project close to when you began. Can you give me
some examples of these least helpful tasks?
A: In my summer placement I think I would do quite a bit of work that
wasn’t really meaningful. I would request about permits which, to Simple tasks

be honest, anyone could really do, but just because it was a boring Tasks that no one
task that no one could be bothered to do *chuckles* they would wants to do
come to me and ask me to do it, which to be fair, it didn’t bother
me that much just because it was only a 2-month placement and
they couldn’t have given me a lot of work because of the continuity
of it, I wouldn’t be there to actually develop the work. So I just
thought that was a bit, boring *chuckles* they could have used me Better use of skills
in, other ways, they could have put my skills to better use, but I
don’t know maybe they just didn’t have anything better for me to
do. And then this year I think I definitely did, a lot of things that H&S tasks Tasks that no one
didn’t really matter that much *chuckles* I did a lot of health and wants to do
safety things, which I thought mattered. Everyone else was like,
“eh,” which is probably why they gave it to me.
JW: *chuckles*
A: But *chuckles* anyway, so I would update the daily task board Lack of Unappreciated
every day and whenever the health and safety person would come encouragement
round, she would make sure it’s up to date, and I felt quite good
about myself. Apparently it didn’t really matter to anyone else.
And then I had to do quite a bit of photocopying, which was quite Photocopying ‘Secretary’ tasks
weird because it was quite early in my placement. It was maybe in
the first month, and there was just a lot of photocopying to be done,
I don’t really know why to be honest. And they asked me to do
some of it, which was just boring, but again if someone asks you
to do it when you’re young, when you’re just starting out, you’re
not going to say no. So I started doing that because the project Management lack of Other people’s
manager asked me to do it, and then the contract manager comes communication and work
up to me and he’s like “what are you doing? Why are you doing understanding of role
this? You should be out on site” and I was a bit like, “well, maybe
speak to your team and tell them not to tell me to do this.” And
then he spoke to the project manager and then he comes up to me
and he’s like, “so sometimes we all have to do some photocopying”
and I was like, “I wasn’t that bothered about it, you made a big deal
out of it but ok.” There was quite a lot of paperwork, I don’t know
if it was even paperwork. I had to do quite a bit of laminating as Laminating ‘Secretary’ tasks
well which was again just boring. I think that’s what the site admin
was supposed to do, and she was just never really doing her job, so Unclear role Other people’s
I was doing it *chuckles* Which definitely didn’t help my responsibilities work
engineering skills in any way, but oh well.
JW: Yeah.
A: Yeah.
JW: Yeah that’s fine. Ok, you’ve answered why you think they helped
Q9 the least so that’s fine. So, question 8 then – are there any things
that stick out that your team did that made you feel more valued as
part of the project team over time? … Have a think about it.

ICME EPM Example Redacted 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICME EPM Example Redacted 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICME EPM Example Redacted 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

School of Civil Engineering

CIVE5170M ICME/EPM DISSERTATION

Submitted in accordance with the requirement for the degree of:

Master of Science (Engineering)

AGE, GENDER AND INADEQUATE INTEGRATION: RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT OF

[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 1

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 2

[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 3

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 4

[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 5

List of figures ....................................................................................................................... 8

List of tables ......................................................................................................................... 9

2 Gap in the body of knowledge ..................................................................................... 15

3 Research design methodology ..................................................................................... 32

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 6

4.2.2 Similar negative gender-based impacts to young PTMs .............................................................. 58

6 Conclusions, limitations and recommendations .......................................................... 93

7 References ................................................................................................................. 101

8 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 111

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 112

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 7

Participant E ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 8

Figure 4.27 Non-developing tasks thematic network ........................................................................ 72

CPD = continued personal development

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 9

[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 10

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 11

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 12

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 13

1.3 Research aim

1.4 Research objectives

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 14

2 Gap in the body of knowledge

2.1 Literature review

2.1.1 Workplace discrimination: cases in the UK and UK construction industry workforce

This section reviews an extensive amount of research conducted on workplace, or workforce,

To begin with, it is important to discuss discrimination as a whole. As the general concept,

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 15

Racism / racial discrimination

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 16

In the UK construction industry, disability is reported to affect approximately 5% of the workforce

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 17

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 18

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 19

Gender and age

2.1.2 Gender discrimination in UK construction industry

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 20

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 21

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 22

2.1.3 Gender roles in UK construction industry

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 23

2.1.4 Age discrimination in the UK construction industry

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 24

Engineering Project Management (Eng) MSc 25