Construction is one of the most gender‐segregated sectors of the UK economy; men constitute over 99 per cent of the employees in the building trades. This article focuses on the role of discourse in reflecting and reproducing the absence of women in the construction trades. A small excerpt from an industry report is described, interpreted and explained using critical discourse analysis. The analysis takes as its starting point one phrase, ‘most jobs in the construction industry can be done by women’ and places it in its structural, institutional and historic context, showing its dependence on presuppositions about women's abilities, and the ideological basis of those assumptions. Male construction workers' masculine identity is defined in relation to their ‘tough’ job. The culture of taking safety risks, and working long hours in primitive working conditions suits some employers very well. The report's assertion that women can do ‘most jobs’ in construction appears to challenge the dominant ideology but it actually reproduces it, helping to maintain gender segregation. Thus it contributes in a small way to sustaining existing power relations by containing potentially transformative movements.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is mobilized to investigate some of the assumptions that lie behind the text of the Respect for People reports (2000, 2004), part of the ‘Egan agenda’ in the UK. The concept of respect is examined, contrasting the humanist view of people as ends in themselves with the instrumentalist view in which human beings are treated as means to an end. Conceptualizing people as an asset encourages this instrumental view. Similarly, the ‘business case’ argument for respecting people means that improvements to working conditions are judged purely in accordance with their contribution to efficiency and profitability rather than in terms of moral imperatives (not killing people) or fairness (not discriminating against them). Investigation of the structural, institutional and discursive context of the text reveals it to be a response to conditions at a particular historical moment: labour shortages; the desire to avoid or pre‐empt regulation; changes in the wider prevailing discourse; and the need to give the impression that ‘something is being done’. In conclusion it is suggested that, while the Respect for People discourse may be seen as a way of containing and defusing potential critique, it could also be drawn on by those seeking to improve working conditions.Discourse, human resource management, Respect for People, working conditions, labour relations,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.