Background and methodology

The research which forms the basis of this article was carried out between 2002 and 2005 as part of an evaluation of a partnership concerned with tackling barriers to the recruitment and progress of women in Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) and with creating cultural change in these areas. The research set out to explore barriers to entry, retention and success for women in SET, as well as some of the ways in which these could be tackled, through a case study of women apprentices in engineering construction. The case study is set in the context of other studies of women in male-dominated industries, particularly in the engineering and construction sectors.

The engineering construction industry constructs plant and makes and maintains equipment for process industries such as oil and gas, food and energy. It is also involved in nuclear plant decommissioning. Trainees in the national apprenticeship scheme for the industry can follow either a craft or technician specialisation for onshore and offshore work. Recruits to the scheme are typically aged between 17 and 21 on entry and apprenticeships last between three and four years. At the time when the research was carried out, an initial 12−18 month training period combined attendance at training centres (run by regional training providers) with day-release classes in further education colleges. This was followed by placement in on-site training, with some apprentices receiving a training allowance throughout both these periods, with others, particularly those placed offshore, receiving the industry rate for the work. The national apprenticeship scheme for the industry was selected as the focus for the research because it was at the time seeking to recruit more women and working in conjunction with other partners to make this possible.

The research was largely qualitative in approach, focusing on women's experiences of apprenticeship in engineering construction, drawing mainly on their testimonies and including where possible input from trainers and other staff involved in recruiting and working with them. Methods used included training centre and site visits, interviews, use of documentary evidence and personal observation. In-depth semi-structured interviews, lasting between one and two hours, were carried out with four of the total of five women entrants to the national apprenticeship scheme in September 2002 (a fifth entrant had left the scheme very quickly and was not available for contact) and all seven women entrants from September 2003. (Total intake to the scheme fluctuated annually but was usually around 200 at the time the research was carried out). Follow-up interviews were carried out later in the women's training. Interviews were also carried out with some women from pre-2002 cohorts and group discussion was facilitated at a networking day for trainees and ex-trainees, now qualified workers, in the sector. In all 23 women engaged in or qualified from the apprenticeship scheme contributed to the research through interviews and group discussion. This constituted all except three (unreachable) of those for whom there were known contact details, and between a third and a half of all women entrants to the scheme, past and present (an accurate figure being difficult to ascertain; some who proved unreachable or for whom there were no contact details had withdrawn from apprenticeships and some were believed to have ‘dropped out’ of the industry). This article focuses mainly on material derived from interviews with continuing apprentices. Additional material is derived from recruitment reviews carried out in 2002 and 2003 as part of the evaluation process. These involved contact with applicants to the national apprenticeship scheme, including those who were not successful or did not pursue their applications through to completion, and with staff involved in recruiting to and administering the scheme.

Face-to-face interviews with the 11 apprentices from the main cohorts for the study took place mainly in their regional training centres, and in one case on site. The focus on women apprentices rather than mixed groups was due to the requirements of the evaluation aspects of the research along with a desire to understand and make visible women's experiences through their accounts and to concentrate limited resources to this end. Training centre and site visits enabled some observations of mixed groups of apprentices and of training settings, and there were meetings, discussions and informal interviews with mostly male training staff and recruiters. References in the following discussion to the views of training staff and recruiters are summarised from these contacts.

Interviews with continuing apprentices from the pre-2002 cohorts (and with ex-apprentices) were conducted mainly on the telephone, as were some follow-up interviews, because these women were in scattered locations throughout the UK and sometimes offshore. These interviews clearly did not offer the same opportunities for direct observation. Though shorter than the face-to-face interviews, they commonly lasted around 45 minutes, so were not superficial, and followed a similar pattern to those conducted face to face. This interview method elicited thoughtful responses and enabled contributions which otherwise would not have been possible.

One woman of Afro-Caribbean origin was interviewed in person; the sample was otherwise overwhelmingly white. It is possible that greater diversity of ethnic background may have been found in those interviewed by telephone, since it was difficult in the circumstances to ask a question about this. However, recruitment to these apprenticeships, whether male or female, from minority ethnic groups was extremely small, as was recruitment of women of all ethnic origins, so the predominantly white composition of the participant group is neither surprising nor unrepresentative.

Interviews with all current and ex-apprentices explored previous backgrounds, interests and education; the process of application for an apprenticeship place; and day-to-day experiences of apprenticeship training. They were analysed in terms of emerging themes, including reasons for choice of career and influences on it; ‘barriers’ to entry and responses to them, early experiences of training and ongoing negotiations with the challenges faced as a result of high visibility within a male-dominated industry. The article uses some of these findings, set in the context of wider work on women in non-traditional industries, to contribute to discussion about gender and employability.

Context

Employment in engineering construction, as already indicated, is very much a non-traditional route for women in the UK and many western countries. Women form a tiny minority of apprentices and workers in engineering construction in the UK, less than 1 per cent when site audits are carried out, and it is among the most gender segregated areas of employment in Britain (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2004). This is despite the possibility of considerably higher earnings than would be the case in many traditionally ‘female’ occupations (Miller et al., Reference Miller, Neathey, Pollard and Hill2004: Dale et al., Reference Dale, Jackson and Hill2005). However, as Cynthia Cockburn (Reference Cockburn1987: 194) argued over 20 years ago, if this situation is to change, ‘simply exhorting young women to widen their aspirations . . . is certainly not enough’. Such gender segregation can, Cockburn argues, partly be due to young women leaving school with sex-stereotyped preferences, but also to both active and passive, in many cases unconscious, discrimination against them. It is not necessarily ‘discrimination’ at an individual level which is the issue, though, but a more general problem of embedded power relationships and social and cultural barriers (Weller, Reference Weller2007).

This then raises the question of whether women see themselves and are seen by others as ‘employable’ within a non-traditional, male-dominated industry such as engineering construction. A focus on gendered occupational cultures in recent years has led to claims that women are not seen as having identities compatible with the engineering community, and that they have to try to develop these in order to belong (e.g., Wall and Clarke, Reference Wall and Clarke1996; Dryburgh, Reference Dryburgh1999; Clarke et al., Reference Clarke, Pedersen, Michelsens, Susman and Wall2004; Faulkner, Reference Faulkner, Archibald, Emms, Brundy and Turner2005a). Lave and Wenger's work on apprenticeship and communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, Reference Lave and Wenger1991; Wenger, Reference Wenger1998) points to a process of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ by which apprentices undergo an identity transformation in order to become full members of a community of practice. However, the research found that women may face difficulties both in attaining ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ and in achieving full membership status. These difficulties start at the pre-recruitment stage and can continue through to employment or lack of it after completion of apprenticeship, despite documented skills shortages within the industry and training agencies expressing a commitment to recruiting and training more women.

Gendered expectations and recruitment

Recruitment issues identified through the research included a lack of accessible information, and obstacles in progressing through the application and selection process. Access to reliable and useable labour market information is seen as an important asset for employability (McQuaid et al., Reference McQuaid, Green and Danson2005) and this can be a problem for those who might consider non-traditional routes. Young women interviewed for this research reported difficulties in accessing material and information about engineering apprenticeships. School and college tutors and careers advisers often seemed to have no or limited information and in any case often were seen as not promoting such routes for women:

There was often an element of chance, where for example relatives and friends involved in engineering, particularly fathers, brothers and men friends or partners, were responsible for passing on information:

Given the young age of entrants to the apprenticeship scheme, parents and teachers could be key. Without support and encouragement from them, which is often unlikely unless they have some connection to the industry themselves, young women may not pursue such a strongly non-traditional route, although some did so as a result of their keen interest in engineering and construction activities, despite parental concerns about ‘dirt and danger’ of various kinds. More fundamentally, young women and their parents and teachers may not even know about such occupations. They may have little awareness of what engineering construction involves, if indeed they have even heard of it, and may have only the haziest knowledge of areas of work within it. Gendered expectations on all sides make it likely that, in the words of one apprentice:

However, gendered expectations on the part of young women themselves, as well as those who may influence them, mean it is more unlikely for them than for young men that without some kind of positive influence or intervention they will know that they want an apprenticeship in engineering construction, or more generally see themselves as employable in such an industry.

If women do get as far as expressing an interest, accessing the necessary information and applying for a place on the scheme, their progress through to a recruitment interview is by no means certain. They can be unsure about what they have applied for, how the recruitment process will work, what is going to happen through its various stages, including technical tests and interviews and what progression there is likely to be after training. They can find it difficult to attend tests and interviews some distance from home and often don't have access to a car or are hesitant about driving in unfamiliar surroundings. There can also be a gap between leaving school at 16, and minimum entry age for the apprenticeship scheme at 17. At all these stages women who may have expressed some initial interest can be discouraged and turn in other directions. One applicant noted that after a wait for information on the progress of her application she ‘didn't fancy it any more’ and ‘you lose a lot of your confidence when that happens’, and another had felt the need to ‘grab what was going’, in her case clerical work.

Whilst some of the anxieties that they experience during the recruitment process may equally apply to young men, women are often well aware that engineering construction is not traditionally for them, that it represents risk as well as opportunity, and therefore their faith in their ability to succeed in it can easily be shaken. It has been suggested that resistance to choosing to train in non-traditional occupations indicates ‘the significant additional risk to which a non-traditional choice exposes the young person’ (Beck et al., Reference Beck, Fuller and Unwin2006a: 273). Their research found young women to be more concerned than young men about how they would be treated in non-traditional jobs, and they point out that occupational choices are about identities as well as interests. Some apprentices in this study reflected that they had ‘always’ wanted to do this kind of work, or had another very conscious and well-articulated reason for choosing it, such as escaping from disadvantage, seeking adventure or avoiding more traditional kinds of work:

Others had a much more tenuous connection to it, perhaps a vague feeling that this might just be something for them, that it might promise a good future or might be more interesting than some of the more traditional alternatives on offer. These women did not regard involvement in this kind of work as central to their identities or interests, and were particularly likely to be discouraged by perceived barriers. Those who did drop out of the recruitment process nevertheless often spoke wistfully, whilst working in an office or in other more traditional and less ‘risky’ work, of still having an interest in engineering, and wishing that they had been able to see it through.

The research also revealed, however, through informal discussion with trainers and recruiters, that some of them may see lack of confidence on the part of these young women as a necessary filter for recruitment, believing that they were less likely to be ‘employable’ in the industry. This was partly explained by the nature of the training and work in the industry, which involve travel away from home and some degree of confidence and independence, but there seemed to be more to it than this. It is impossible to know from the research whether young men are judged similarly in this respect, but their choice of such apprenticeships is widely seen as gender-appropriate. It comes with less risk attached, both for them and for recruiters, who, as Collinson et al. (Reference Collinson, Knights and Collinson1990: 198) point out, face commercial pressures and retention targets and may be concerned to be seen as competent selectors. These researchers found evidence of interviewers coming down hard on women to see if they could take it, and that even where recruitment was difficult, women candidates continued to be rejected. Whilst the apprenticeship research discussed in this article found no evidence of disproportionate rejection of women candidates for apprenticeships, it did find that norms of gender-appropriateness may, consciously or not, affect all aspects of the recruitment process from initial publicity and encouragement onwards, including support for applicants. There was often lack of awareness of, and in some cases resistance to, the idea that specific targeting and support of women might (within the remit of equality legislation) increase numbers applying and progressing through the application process. The industry is seen by some recruiters as particularly tough, and women are required to be tough themselves, in order to fit in to it and be fit for it from the beginning – to ‘hit the deck running’. However, ‘toughness’ and ‘confidence’ are subjective qualities and ones which can develop over time. Moreover, assessments of ‘fit’ in organisational life are commonly based on a male rather than a female profile (Priola, Reference Priola2007), thus potentially disadvantaging women applicants or dissuading them from applying. Collinson et al. (Reference Collinson, Knights and Collinson1990) draw on Jenkins’ distinction between functional ‘suitability’, where specific performance criteria are related to job requirements and qualifications, and functionally non-specific ‘acceptability’. The latter involves very nebulous criteria and ‘the cultural reproduction of white male hegemony is all but guaranteed’ (ibid: 60).

This cultural reproduction of labour market segmentation can be overt, covert or unconscious and may vary across time and place. It cannot, however, be understood simply in terms of an accumulation of individual processes and decisions, or in terms of recruitment processes alone, but reflects ‘the routine expressions of barriers that are complexly intertwined with social, cultural and economic norms’ (Weller, Reference Weller2007: 421).

Recruiters to apprenticeships often expressed a need to be honest with potential and actual applicants about the demands of training and work in the industry, considering this necessary both in terms of retention, given the high cost of training, and in fairness to the applicants themselves, in whose best interests they may believe they are acting. This may also, however, unconsciously or not, convey messages to women about who is seen as most employable within the industry. Two women recounted interview questions which sketched vivid pictures of gender isolation in terms that emphasised the ‘otherness’ of women in such settings. One, who subsequently completed an apprenticeship, recalled being asked how she would cope with ‘140 boys aged 16–20 with their hormones running wildly’ and another apprentice remembered:

Both of these women were offered and took up apprenticeship places, despite the perception of the former that such questions were designed to ‘put women off’, whilst the latter felt that they were intended to ‘see if you had it in you’. Recruiters, trainers and women apprentices and workers in the industry all made reference to the notion of ‘having it in you’, which was commonly believed to determine one's progress or otherwise into and within the industry. This went hand-in-hand with the argument that success or failure within the industry largely came down to individual characteristics. In other words, applicants and apprentices were usually seen, by themselves as well as by trainers and employers, as having, or not having ‘context-independent strengths and weaknesses’. Here, identity and potential for development is seen as primarily deriving from the individual, in contrast to work on communities of practice which emphasises the situated, context-specific nature of identity, learning and development (Yandell and Turvey, Reference Yandell and Turvey2007: 535). This individualist approach fits Rodd and Bartholomew's (Reference Rodd and Bartholomew2006: 39) characterisation of ‘an espoused liberal equal opportunities ethos which works towards greater female participation but stops short of challenging the terms in which they are expected to participate’. What this can mean in practice is that despite apparent attempts by government, education and training agencies and some branches of industry to work towards greater participation by women in non-traditional occupations, there is still an emphasis on women's responsibility to prove themselves fit for the work and able to fit in to it. Their responsibility for this does not stop at the recruitment or entry stage, but is ongoing throughout apprenticeship and later work.

Surviving and thriving in employment

‘Employability’, as noted earlier, is not just about gaining entry to work but also about sustaining it. Broadly defined, it could also encompass ability to pursue an occupation of one's own choosing, to be fairly paid, to progress if desired and to thrive rather than simply survive. In the study discussed here, ‘fitting in’ and gaining legitimacy were continuing issues for women progressing through their apprenticeships and beyond, as well as for those who left for reasons including difficulties in obtaining work post-qualification and perceived incompatibility of the work with domestic commitments.

Women negotiated these challenges in different ways and with varying degrees of ease or difficulty. There was no standard experience and accounts were often very positive. The industry was seen as having a lot to offer, including great learning opportunities, travel, ‘fun’, independence and good money. Challenging gender-stereotyped expectations was often quietly relished, with reports of enjoying people's surprise on learning their chosen occupation. Even so, as Cockburn (Reference Cockburn1987: 202) has noted, ‘young women, and, in a different way, young men, do not make gender-contrary moves scot-free’.

There were many examples from the interview material of the work involved in ‘fitting in’ and of the often hidden costs which this could involve, although the extent to which these were perceived as costs and seen as problematic varied between women and at different times and in different circumstances or settings. Whilst women often claimed that they were treated ‘just the same as the men’, their interviews revealed that this was not always the case. Examples included being the target of jokes, as a result of visible difference, and feelings of isolation.

Attempts to deal with this included the nurturing of friendship wherever it might be found, regardless of personal preference. There was work to be done too in managing gendered bodies. This included for example lack of access to female toilets and washrooms, one woman losing a stone and a half in weight due to feeling constantly under observation as a lone woman in the canteen and being consequently unable to eat there, and monitoring dress and other aspects of appearance. One example was given of being careful not to wear a low-cut top, for which one woman had been reprimanded, but not to be revealing in other ways either:

Behaviour, as well as bodies, had to be managed or policed. Examples included avoiding drinking or swearing, since this could be disapproved of by men as inappropriate female behaviour, and ‘proving oneself’ by not making mistakes, but not doing too well either. In the words of one apprentice:

Through all of this, the emphasis was on women needing to adapt and not on the work culture needing to change.

As the research showed, and as many of the studies cited in this article have suggested, complex negotiations of identities may be undertaken by women in relation to the demands of the non-traditional workplace (see also Evetts, Reference Evetts1996). Some women experience this as more problematic than others, as might be expected, given recent theoretical work on the complexity and diversity of gender identities, and the ‘multiple and competing discursive constructions of who we could be’ (Halford and Leonard, Reference Halford and Leonard2006: 2). Interpretations and strategies vary for any one individual as well as between women, depending on time and context. They can be multiple, overlapping and contradictory, incorporating elements of denial, resistance and conformity for example. A common finding in studies of women in non-traditional industries is of women ‘becoming men’ (Carter and Kirkup, Reference Carter and Kirkup1990; Bagilhole, Reference Bagilhole2002; Clarke et al., Reference Clarke, Pedersen, Michelsens, Susman and Wall2004; Du, Reference Du2006) or ‘one of the boys’ in order to survive, though this may be far from straightforward. One apprentice reflected extensively on such matters: