Deconstructing gender by Rosa Turner Wood

WO Men at work Deconstructing Gender Can choices in building method address gender inequality in the construction sector?

Rosa Turner Wood

Contents 01 02 03

Introduction

Women in Construction 1.1 Demand 1.2 Current Concerns 1.3 Change and Solutions British Construction in the 21st Century: The Context Offsite Manufacturing 3.1 Overview of Offsite Manufacturing 3.2 Fixed Employment Location 3.3 A Predictable Working Environment

3.4 Lindbäcks Bygg: A Case Study 3.5 Offsite Manufacturing: A Future Model for Female Employment? Self-Build 4.1 Overview of Self-Build Housing 4.2 Presumed Inability

4.3 Church Grove: A Contemporary Model 4.4 Women’s Workshop: A Case Study

4.5 Can Self-Build Schemes Address the Fallacy of Female Inability Robotics 5.1 Overview of Robotics 5.2 Drive for Women in STEM Subjects 5.3 Robotics in Action

5.4 Robotics Engineering Presented as a Viable Occupation for Women? Conclusion – The Way Forward

1 2 2 2 6 8 12 12 14 15 17 18 18 19 21 23 24 24 27 29 30

Bibliography

References

Figures

Appendices Appendix A: Danna Walker Interview Appendix B: Sarah Ernst Interview

Appendix C: Jenny Pickerill Interview Appendix D: Hannah Arkell Interview Appendix E: Gabriella Rossie Interview Appendix F: Information Sheet

48 56 62 72 76 80

Thanks to Danna Walker, Gabriella Rossi, Hannah Arkell, Ian Hicklin, Jenny Pickerill, Sarah Ernst, and Wen-Shao Chang for sharing your time, knowledge and experience. And to all women pioneering equality and diversity in their industry.

Introduction Women currently represent approximately 11% of those working in the UK construction sector, and 1% of those in manual trade roles (Munn 2014, p.3). The reasons behind this exceptionally low female employment rate are manifold, but studies and anecdotal evidence illuminate a culture of sexism and insufficient support (Munn 2014). Simultaneously, the sector must address the consequences of a declining workforce, and the imperative to construct more housing (Farmer 2016). In this dissertation I will argue that confronting inequity in the construction sector should be mandatory not only to seek equality, but also as a means to meet current industry demands. This dissertation will focus on evaluating whether specific methods of construction could be utilised as a means to address gender disparity within the industry. I examine contemporary building techniques and low impact development solutions, before comparing the capacity for off-site manufacturing, self-build homes and robotics to instigate palpable change in female representation in the construction sector. While literature reveals some physical differences between men and women (Miller et al. 1992), my argument is framed by discourse argued by Gilbert (2009) that gender expectations and presumed capabilities are enforced on women by a patriarchal society. This dissertation contends it is this sexist assessment of women and their abilities that has excluded women from equality in the construction sector. Through original interviews and interrogation of existing case studies, I evaluate appropriate construction methods to address gender equity in the industry.

Chapter 01

Women in Construction

In this chapter I investigate the issues preventing women from adopting more roles in the construction sector and demonstrate some potential immediate remedies. 1.1 Demand According to the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (2012) the construction sector is the second largest UK employer, comprising 7.5% of all employees (2012, p.5). Recent statistics published by the House of Commons presented the construction industry as contributing 6% of the UK’s economic output and described 17% of all UK businesses as being part of the construction sector (Great Britain 2018c, p.4). Yet, in a 2013 survey of the industry, one in five employers reported a current skills shortage in the sector, with an additional 87% of respondents expecting skills shortages in the future (Home Builders Federation 2013, p.10). To meet the current housing demand a 2016 Select Committee report set a minimum target of 300,000 new homes to be delivered per annum ‘for the foreseeable future’ (England 2016, p.4). However, in 2017 and 2018 only an additional 222,190 homes were constructed (England 2018c). 1.2 Current Concerns Under-representation There are currently low levels of participation by women in the construction sector: between 2003 and 2004 women represented 13.2% of the industry’s workforce, but by 2013 this figure had declined to 11.8% (Ackrill et al. 2017, p.3037). These figures starkly contrast with professions such as health work and education, where women represent a majority of the labour force (Great Britain 2019c, p.6). When in 2018 the Office for National Statistics (2018) reviewed the ‘Employment by Occupation’ of the UK workforce, the statistics conveyed the overwhelming discrepancy between the employment of men and women in the sector. This difference was most clearly evident in manual occupations such as bricklaying, scaffolding and roofing, where the proportion of women was too small to measure. Ageing Workforce and Leaving the European Union A 2016 construction report indicated a steady increase in the demand for workers in skilled trades in the UK, stating 700,000 people would need to be recruited to ‘replace those retiring’ in addition to ‘the extra workforce needed of 120,000 to deliver capacity growth’ (Farmer 2016, p.32). However, the industry has since reported the dramatic decline in worker numbers (Shepherd 2017), partly due to the demanding nature of the industry that forces early retirement (UK Commission for Employment and Skills 2012, p.12; Gurjao 2006). In addition, a loss of migrant labour due to anticipated restrictions as a result of Britain leaving the European Union has exacerbated this issue, with low skilled labourers

Steel erectors

Bricklayers and masons

Roofers, roof tilers and tilers Carpenters and joiners

Construction and building trades

Production managers and directors in consruction

Construction project managers and related professions Scaffolders, stagers and riggers Key

Men 8,000

Women 8,000

Figure 01: Women in Construction by Profession, 2018 (Office for National Statistics 2018)

construction workforce

Figure 02: Women at Work, Crossrail (Clarke et al 2015)

not currently accommodated in current UK immigration policy post-Brexit (Blackwell

University of Westminster team: the impact of an ageing workforce and diminishing et al 2018). Reports investigating Professor Linda Clarke migrant labour (Farmer 2016; Pinoncely and Belcher 2018) concede that action must Elisabeth Michielsens be taken to mitigate the resultant skills shortages or risk repercussions in the built Dr environment. Sylvia Snijders Dr Christine Wall Sexism in the Profession

University of Loughborough team: In 2018 consulting firm Randstad surveyed 5,400 people employed within construction Professor Andrew Dainty and infrastructure industries. The findings illuminated bias and mistreatment within the Professor Barbara Bagilhole industry: of the 22% of respondents who said they had experienced gender-based Dr Sarah Barnard discrimination, 60% were women (2018, p.2), in addition 73% of the women surveyed stated that they had been overlooked for projects because of their gender.

May 2015

Numerous papers discuss the harassment faced by women on construction sites, including the undermining of women’s ability (Munn 2014), exposure to sexual harassment (Sunindijo and Kamardeen) and sexualised ‘banter’ (Clarke et al 2015). In this environment it is inevitable that few women want to engage with the sector. Informal Recruitment Bindel (2006) indicate that only 3% of construction jobs are advertised, implying that roles on site are filled through colleagues’ endorsements and word of mouth. Best (2014) has described this tradition of informal networking, stating the industry has been reliant upon this method of employment for ‘at least 300 years’ (2014). This method of informal recruitment has benefited men, while women in the sector are more dependent on formal methods of employment (Opoku and Williams 2019, Wright 2014). The consequence is that women are denied the opportunity to gain the practical experience necessary to progress further in their career (Wright 2015), while a gender-homogenous workforce has been established that is devoid of women (Clarke et al. 2015).

Site Conditions In Bagilhole’s evaluation of issues faced by women on site she notes unsuitable (and unsafe) clothing and lack of access to female toilets (Munn 2014, p.21). This is reiterated by Craig who reviews a study that disclosed that 15% of women had trouble accessing personal protective equipment (PPE) that would fit (Munn 2014, p.79). Accommodating women working on site, including provision of suitable toilet access, would be a small move to increase the employment and retainment of a female labour force. Lack of Flexibility Sunindijo and Kamardeen (2017) describe the industry’s lack of flexibility, where the culture of long working hours has become synonymous with commitment. This inflexibility is detrimental to the careers of women who choose to have children. Gurjao (2006) describes the industry’s failure to retain women, worsened by the offer of lower than average statutory maternity leave (2006, p.28), and the small percentage of parttime work made available (2006, p.32). By not offering flexible working the industry is putting itself at a disadvantage, losing some of its most capable male and female workforce who cannot commit to excessive working hours.

222,190 homes

20102011

20112012

20122013

20132014

20142015

Key

20152016

20162017

20172018

20,000 homes

Figure 03: Annual Housing supply, 2010 - 2018 (England 2018c)

2013

2003 - 2004

86.8%

13.2%

88.2% Key

11.8% Men Women

Figure 04: Women in Construction 2003/2004 & 2013 (Ackrill et al. 2017, p.3037)

1.3

Change and Solutions

Gender Equality as an Economic Argument While it matters culturally to have more women engaged in the construction sector, there is also a decisive economic argument for diversifying the industry. It has been noted in the UK that for every 10% increase in a company’s female workforce, there is an additional 3.5% increase in the organisation’s earnings before interest and taxes (McKinsey and Company 2015, p.4). This is reinforced further by Opoku and Williams (2019) who contend that the under-utilisation of women costs the UK economy 1.3 - 2% of gross domestic product (GDP). Therefore, when we frame the argument for greater diversity in the sector, we should not simply acknowledge meeting quotas and creating harmonious work environments, but also the economic benefit of diversity. Procurement Procurement reform is necessary to create real change for women. Shepherd states that by not enforcing minimum recruitment targets the sector has relinquished its responsibility for enforcing change (2017, p.16). Wright concludes with an argument that public procurement processes could be harnessed to offer ‘employment chances for under-represented groups’ (2015, p.139). A good example of positive discrimination in the public sector is the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). In the lead up to the London 2012 Olympic Games it made a concerted effort to redress under-representation of marginal groups in construction, stipulating targets for the recruitment of disabled workers, ethnic minorities and women on the Olympic Park construction (Wright 2014, p.19). With specific regard to women, it was anticipated that by profiling their employment on the Olympic site, there

would be inevitable and lasting change across the sector. Although the target of a 11% female workforce was not met (stagnating at 3%), there was success in training 455 women on site (Clarke et al. 2015, p.12). I would further argue that the Government should be applying pressure on the private sector too, ensuring that diversity targets in recruitment are set and met. Role Models and Mentoring In identifying barriers faced by women entering the construction sector, Worrall et al (2009) state a need for greater access to mentors. Danna Walker, founder of the notfor-profit social enterprise organisation Built By Us (BBU), reiterated this to me in an interview. BBU aims to diversify the construction sector by advocating the benefits of diversity and supporting companies who wish to address the issue. In conversation, Walker stressed the importance of female role models: “Image is powerful, role models are powerful” (see appendix A). Regarding mentoring, she asserted: “I’m committed to things like mentoring, and I think it’s because we see tangible outcomes for people going through that process (…) it allows you to view the whole person as an individual in terms of where they want to go, and how they want to get into a sector” (see appendix A). Therefore, offering adequate mentoring support, as well as highlighting existing role models in the industry, must be embraced by the sector in order for women to see construction as a more viable career option. Education Positive profiling of the construction sector should start in primary and secondary education; our failure to provide adequate careers advice has been demonstrated to inhibit young people from pursuing work in the profession (Shepherd 2017, p.16). To ensure the construction industry can meet current production demands it is essential that it markets itself to young people. Organisations like BBU act in supporting change, but the sector as a whole must assume responsibility in advocating the rewards of working in this sector, and work to ensure the profession reflects the diversity of the people it serves.

Jobs held by women, per million

Key Health and social work 2

Education Accomodation and food services Public administration and defence

Construction Figure 05: Employment of women by industry, September 2018 (Great Britain 2019c)

Chapter 02

British Construction in the 21st Century: The Context

Construction in the UK in the 21st century has been marked by a greater preference for and utilisation of digital practices and fabrication, in tandem with attempts to address the environmental impact of the sector. In this chapter I outline the construction industry’s increased adoption of modern construction methods, as well as its growing interest in low impact developments. This is led by the Government’s endeavours to reduce emissions and put the UK at the ‘forefront of the industries of the future’ (Great Britain 2017a, p.32). A housing stock profile in 2008 reported that 95.1% of England’s dwellings were constructed of traditional structural timber or masonry, with only 4.9% utilising nontraditional methods (Office for National Statistics 2008 p.8). Traditional methods are reliant on a large labour force able to work onsite, contingent on stable weather conditions, and dependent on the prompt delivery of materials (Taylor 2009). Moreover, traditional construction has been demonstrated to have poor environmental credentials. Oakley (2017) has described traditional methods as wasting 10-20% of raw materials (p.9), while Pinoncely and Belcher emphasise onsite construction’s contribution to air pollutants. In 2018 the Government pledged to ‘at least halve the energy use of new buildings by 2030’ (Great Britain 2018d, p.46). In addition to this, the Committee on Climate Change outlined the necessity to mitigate further increases in global temperatures and set the target of producing net-zero greenhouse gases by 2050 (2019, p.8). One of the Government’s ‘Grand Challenges’ stated a mission for ‘Clean Growth’, promoting development in technologies to create buildings that use ‘dramatically less energy to build and run’ (Great Britain 2017a, p.46). The MOIIS (Mission-Oriented Innovation and Industrial Strategy) Commission offered several recommendations for its realisation, including ‘machine learning and the industrialisation of new builds’ and ‘innovative building design for resource and energy efficiency’ (UCL IIPP 2019, p.38). By harnessing technological and sustainable innovations, the Commission contends that the UK can place itself as a ‘world-leader in solving societal challenges’ (UCL IIPP 2019, p.92). As part of the ‘Clean Growth’ strategy the Government allocated £170 million in 2018 for the Transforming Construction programme (Great Britain 2018a, p.13). With this funding the programme intends to provide financial backing for the incorporation of digital technologies and manufacturing processes across the construction sector, as well as supporting further research and development programmes to encourage greater advancement in these technologies (Great Britain 2018a, p.13). In addition to its commitment to the Transforming Construction programme the Government has placed emphasis on the utilisation of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) by the housebuilding industry (Great Britain 2017b and

AI & Data Economy Put the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution

Clean Growth Maximise the advantages for UK industry from the global shift to clean growth

Grand Challenges

Future of Mobility Become a world leader in the way people, goods and services move

Ageing Society Harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society

Figure 06: The Grand Challenges to ‘put the United Kingdom at the forefront of the industries of the future’ (Great Britain 2017a)

2019b). MMC offers a move away from traditional construction methods, instead employing manufacturing processes and digital practices (RICS 2018, p.6) to create opportunities to improve efficiency and precision in building. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Joint Industry (MHCLG) Working Group (Farmer 2019) has outlined a definitional structure for the term MMC in residential construction, and asserted there are seven classifications, as depicted in figure 07. A report ordered by the House of Commons advocates several benefits of practising MMC techniques, including: a potential reduction in construction costs by 20 – 40%; a safer working environment for employees; improved efficiency in material use; and reduction in deliveries to site (Great Britain, 2019b, p.11). Further to this, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) argues that greater confidence is instilled in stakeholders through the application of MMC, reasoning that digitalisation offers an

Category 1 ‘Pre-manufacturing – 3D primary structural systems’ Volumetric units that are built in factory conditions, before transported to site. These systems are structural and may be internally finished. Category 2 ‘Pre-Manufacturing - 2D primary structural systems’ Flat panel components constructed at a factory. Typical materials include timber or steel structural frames, although advanced systems could include additional materials, for integrating services and insulation. Category 3 ‘Pre-Manufacturing Components Non systemised structural components’ Load-bearing elements produced in factory conditions. This encompasses engineered timbers, pre-cast concrete, and steel, which are employed structurally, for example, as walls, beams, floor slabs and columns. Category 4 ‘Additive Manufacturing – Structural and non-structural’ A digitalised system of 3D printing parts of a building. Outputs may or may not have structural properties and could be printed onsite or remotely. Category 5 ‘Pre-Manufacturing–Non-structural assemblies and sub-assemblies’ Non-structural elements of a building assembly, ranging from kitchen and bathroom units to roofing cassettes. Generally, these are characterised as repeatable portions of a building. Category 6 ‘Traditional building product led site labour reduction/ productivity improvements’ Conventional building products manufactured offsite to lessen labour needs onsite. This can include large layout roofing finishes, brick slips, and flexible pipework. Category 7 ‘Site process led labour reduction/productivity improvements/ assurance improvements’ Application of innovative construction methods onsite. Embracing the use of robotics, digital augmentation, automated equipment, drones, and other digital techniques. Figure 07: Modern Methods of Construction, Classification (Farmer 2019)

down, at least two are going forward to become mature trees. Everything we do is being replenished, making it a truly sustainable building material.”

planned within the loading restrictions.

Image source: Daniel Shearing

Figure 08: Dalston Lane, designed by architects Waugh Thistleton, using MMC techniques (RICS 2018, p.12)

opportunity for performance monitoring ‘throughout a building’s life’ (RICS 2018, p.6). Mark Farmer’s boldly titled report ‘Modernise or Die’ provides a compelling argument Modern Methods of Construction for employment of digital practices and manufacturing by the construction sector: ‘modernise’ or ‘face a future of decline and marginalisation’ (2016, p.50). Simultaneously, interest has grown for Low Impact Developments (LID). LID projects aim to use materials sourced sustainably, are devised for specific site conditions (Maxey and Pickerill 2009) and allow for reuse and recycling when deconstructed (Kohler et al 2010). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has set an aim to limit global temperature increases by 1.5°C (2018, p.24). In order to meet this target we must look to alternative construction methods such as LIDs. It is evident that to meet the demand for house building, address emission targets, and maintain its relevancy in future industries, the UK must harness contemporary and sustainable construction technologies. In this dissertation I have chosen to explore the utilisation of off-site manufacturing, self-build and robotics as contemporary and sustainable building techniques. In the following chapters I will present the argument that as the construction sector makes more use of these building methods, there will emerge inherent capacities for these technologies to support women in the sector.

Chapter 03

Offsite Manufacturing

3.1 Overview of Offsite Manufacturing Offsite manufacturing is a mode of construction that involves the prefabrication of elements, or whole modules, in a factory prior to assembly on site (Hairstans 2014), which has been noted to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 60% (Turner Wood 2019, p.4); Oakley 2017, p.9). According to Pinoncely and Belcher, offsite manufacturing can also deliver outputs faster, evaluated as two-thirds quicker than traditional methods (2018, p.4). As a consequence, although current estimates of offsite manufacturing state the sector is responsible for only 7% of the UK construction industry’s outputs (Turner Wood 2019, p.4; Oakley 2017, p.4), it is predicted that the efficiency of this building method will lead to its wider adoption. This has been further affirmed by the House of Lord’s decision to describe a ‘presumption in favour’ of offsite manufacturing (Turner Wood 2019, p.4; Great Britain 2017a, p.139). The term offsite manufacturing is a blanket term, covering several different strategies for construction. However, these construction systems can be broadly characterised within one of the four, as presented in figure 09. In order for the UK construction sector to remain competitive the Department for Business Innovation & Skills’ (2013) has specified the necessity of increasing the skilled workforce in offsite manufacturing. Therefore, to meet offsite’s anticipated expansion it is vital we increase the female workforce to meet the industry’s demands. As Simon Rawlinson of the Construction Leadership Council stated, offsite manufacturing provides a “future for everybody”, not just a male workforce (Offsite Hub 2019). 3.2 Fixed Employment Location The academic Barbara Bagilhole identified inflexible working hours and the necessity for a transient workforce as contributing to gender inequality within the construction industry (Turner Wood 2019, p.4; Munn 2014). On-site manual labour necessitates that a workforce physically goes to a project’s site, often dictating that employees either travel great distances to work or have to relocate (Turner Wood 2019, p.4; Taylor 2009). While these conditions affect all genders, it is apparent that it is women for whom these inflexible working circumstances pose the greatest issue. By comparison, offsite construction occurs within a contained working environment, with employees working in permanent factory locations, and often hired as a local workforce (Turner Wood 2019, p.4). Dr Robert Hairstains describes the importance of these fixed working conditions in providing ‘job security and flexible shift patterns’ (2014, p.8) that work to improve the gender imbalance in the workforce (Turner Wood 2019, p.4). This is reflected in statistics on women in the industry, which show that women represent approximately 13% of those within construction (Hairstans 2014, p.8), of which 27% of women are in offsite or non-manual positions (Construction

Construction

Volumetric or modular systems Three-dimensional units that are constructed in factory conditions before being transported to location (Pinoncely and Belcher 2018). This term encompasses the fabrication of ‘pods’ - such as fully fitted bathroom or kitchen units (Hairstans 2014) - and extends to finished modules of a building which are connected on site (Taylor 2009).

Panellised systems Flat panels that are built in a factory and assembled as a three-dimensional structure on site (Planning Committee 2016). Panellised systems are defined as being either open or closed; open systems are typically building frames that remain un-insulated, while closed systems are insulated, and often completed with fixtures, windows, doors and externally clad (Pinoncely and Belcher 2018). Hairstans (2014) further describes the possibility for ‘enhanced panels’ (p.4), which are completed with electrical and plumbing services.

Hybrid systems These systems offer a combination approach, often employing a fusion of a panellised and volumetric system (Hairstans 2014).

Components or elements These sub-assemblies provide smaller prefabricated elements, including staircases, windows, ironmongery and doors (Taylor 2009).

Figure 09: Offsite Manufacturing Categories (Taylor 2009; Planning Committee 2016; Pinoncely and Belcher 2018; Hairstans 2014)

“The invisibility of the family remains central to the demands of the construction industry. Women perceive that they have to make a choice between a career and a family-oriented lifestyle.” Meg Munn (Munn 2014, p.23)

Skills 2009, p.27) in comparison with 1.18% in manual trades (Turner Wood 2019, p.4; Munn 2014, p.32). While undoubtedly progress should be made to increase manual tradeswomen on construction sites, I do believe the offsite manufacturing setting could be regarded as more conducive to stable work/life balance (Turner Wood 2019, p.4). 3.3 A Predictable Working Environment While typically men and women have been observed to have different bodily strengths as a result of muscle fibre areas (Miller et al 1992), the predominant discourse around women’s lesser strength is based on sexist presumptions (Turner Wood 2019, p.5). Negative perceptions about the physically demanding conditions of on-site construction (Wright 2014) have been demonstrated to deter women from the profession and have been defended by employers as a reason not to employ females (Davey et al 2000). Furthermore, the health and safety issues that arise as a consequence of unpredictable on-site environments have been observed to be an additional deterrent to female occupation (Munn 2014). The threat of hazardous on-site conditions is founded in a reality; the economist and policy analyst Matthew Oakley (2017) claims that injuries and illness related to the construction industry costs the sector £1.2 billion a year and the loss of 2.2 million working days (Turner Wood 2019, p.5). By contrast, offsite manufacturing offers a controlled and regulated environment (Offsite Hub 2019), often using mechanical interventions in its production. The risk to employees of accident, ill health and physical overexertion (Great Britain 2018a), which is often a deterrent to mechanical interventions in its production. The risk to employees of accident, ill health and physical overexertion (Great Britain 2018a), which is often a deterrent to female employment in the construction sector, is thereby minimised in these factory environments (Turner Wood 2019, p.5).

Munn states women in construction are often exposed to ‘unchallenged sexism combined with the repeated undermining of their worth’ (2014, p.4). Wright (2013) discusses the physical distance between a construction company’s headquarters and the building site as increasing the likelihood of harassment, because it is easier to ‘ignore formal policies’ (2013, p.839). Employing offsite manufacturing techniques that minimise the labour requirement on site (Goulding et al. 2007, p.163) could therefore also inadvertently curtail the macho culture that is nurtured by the sector. If the working environment is more constant and better policed by employers, then it becomes harder to ignore discrimination faced by a female workforce. 3.4 Lindbäcks Bygg: A Case Study Lindbäck Bygg is a Swedish offsite manufacturing company that specialises in the production of timber-framed residential construction (Lindbäck 2017). In recent years the company has made ambitious attempts to redress the gender imbalance within their company by endeavouring to employ an equal share of men and women as new recruits. In a paper by the CEO of Lindbäck Bygg, Stefan Lindbäck, emphasis is placed on the company’s efforts to create a supportive workplace as a means to foster gender inclusivity (Lindbäck 2017). In an interview, Lindbäck acknowledges that the perceived intense physical labour of the construction profession can deter both women and men from this line of work (Turner Wood 2019, p.6). Discussing the production system at one of the company’s new factories, Lindbäck stated the facility was designed to create the possibility

Figure 10: Lindbäcks Bygg Offsite Manufacturing Factory (Morley n.d.)

Figure 11: Legal & General modular housing factory (Wilmore 2019)

y consumptio erg n en

to site vel tra in

Offsite Manufacturing

90% re du cti on

67% re duc tio n

Figure 12: Benefits of offiste manufacturing (Yorkon n.d.)

to ‘work with a little less muscular strength’, which in turn would positively affect all genders by minimising ‘wear and tear on (…) bodies’ (Håål et al 2017). Further advances by the company included ensuring safety clothing was suitable for its female workforce, an issue repeatedly outlined in Meg Munn’s 2014 report on women in construction (Turner Wood 2019, p.6). Lindbäck made contact with Swedish workwear company Björnkläder, commissioning the brand to produce over 300 pairs of carpenter trousers that could be better fitted to a female body (Dey 2018). As a consequence of the success of this new product, Björnkläder is now offering this product to the general market (Turner Wood 2019, p.6). Although in November 2018 Lindbäck Bygg’s female recruitment was only 20%, this is still significantly higher than their original figure of 6% female employment (SunPine 2018), and greater than the overall percentage of women in construction in Britain (Turner Wood 2019, p.6). 3.5 Offsite Manufacturing: A Future Model for Female Employment? In comparison with traditional construction, the offsite manufacturing model has been demonstrated to offer safer, quicker and more cost-effective outputs (Turner Wood 2019, p.6; Pye Tait Consulting 2017). The method has been shown to reduce waste and pollutants associated with the industry (Taylor 2009, p.6), marking it as a technology that will become more prevalent in the construction industry’s future (Oakley 2017). Among its other benefits, offsite manufacturing brings fixed employment settings with improved health and safety measures, and mechanical interventions, which can facilitate positive working environments for both male and female workforce. I would therefore argue that the stability of a factory environment could eradicate perceived concerns by some women and employers regarding women’s suitability and confidence within the industry.

Chapter 04

Self-Build

4.1 Overview of Self-Build Housing Current estimates suggest that self-build represents a meagre 10% of the UK’s housing production (Benson and Hamiduddin 2017, p.6). This contrasts markedly with other European countries: in Sweden a third of new homes are self-built, whilst in Belgium and in France this rises to approximately 50% (Pickerill 2017, p. 356). In an action plan by the National Self Build Association (NaSBA) they acknowledge several current issues preventing greater deployment of self-build housing in the UK. NaSBA state that access to available land, and its affordability (2011, p.4), as well as inadequate financial support - especially for community groups (2011, p.5) - as hindering greater uptake. In their book Self-Build Homes, Benson and Hamiduddin offer a broad definition of the term self-build, stating it is a ‘practice that involves households and groups who invest time and energy in the building of their own homes in various ways’ (2017, p.3). By not over-refining its definition, the authors attempt to embrace the breadth of what it means to self-build, from co-operative housing developments, to individuals facilitating the construction of their own homes. This is reinforced by Walliman (Smith 2012), who defines a self-build project as both one where an individual is engaged in the practice of constructing, as well as one enabled by a ‘self-promoter’ (p.259), where the individuals have procured the land, and employed a construction team. In this dissertation I focus on those participants actively involved in construction. 4.2 Presumed Inability Women’s capabilities to work on site are consistently undermined by a rhetoric that insinuates they are not competent (Munn 2014 and Clarke et al 2015). In an interview I conducted with Jenny Pickerill, Professor in Environmental Geography and self-builder, she discussed her experience researching and engaging with eco-communities and self-building. Pickerill’s research illuminated misogynistic assumptions; “it was the presumption still that women not only couldn’t specifically do the strength jobs, but that it wasn’t women’s place to build and design structures” (see appendix C). In these instances, women were relegated to working on interiors, assuming more traditional female roles. Where brute strength is required on site plumber Hattie Hassan (Women In Construction 2019), academic Smith (2013) and Pickerill (2015) discuss women learning to adjust their bodies to the conditions. However, for all, the physical capacity of women was less of a reason for women’s marginalisation in the profession than institutionalised misogyny. Antiquated views of women in construction are sustained because women are so poorly represented on site, as a consequence of not gaining suitable training. Wright (2014) describes the success of work placements as a tool to enroll more women,

creating an opportunity to understand the expertise and physical requirements necessary for the job, while for employers it demonstrates a womanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to match her male counterparts (2014, p.40). I believe that self-build as a model can redress this, by providing practical on-site practice. 4.3 Church Grove: A Contemporary Model In the 1970s and 1980s Walter Segal, a German-born architect, pioneered the selfbuild model, designing timber-framed housing that could be constructed by its occupants (Ward n.d). Several schemes emerged in South-East London, with Segal asserting that anyone had the capacity to construct (Grahame, 2015). Segalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model offers a sustainable solution to housing construction, using standardised timber sizes for the frame, and with the utilisation of timber consequently reducing the necessity for deep foundations (Jeffrey 2016). The Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS) was founded in 2009 by Kareem Dayes and Barbara Hicks. RUSS was organised with the intention of developing an affordable self-build co-housing scheme in Church Grove, Lewisham, and culminated in a proposal for 33 sustainable homes (RUSS n.d. a), facilitated by Jon Broome Architects and the practice Architype (RUSS n.d. b). In an interview with Sarah Ernst, an architect at Architype and project lead on the

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

K U

ay Fr an ce Ire la nd C an ad Au a st ra N lia et he rla nd s

or w

Ita

iu m

Be lg

ria

% Homes delivered by self-build

90%

Figure 13: Self-build Homes, Global Statistics (National Self Build Association 2008)

Figure 14: RUSS, Ladywell Self-build Community Hub (RUSS 2019)

Figure 15: Fourth Action womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s self-build, Northumberland (Kelly n.d.)

RUSS Church Grove housing development, she discussed how the original intention of the residents to exclusively build the scheme had changed as a consequence of finances. The time required to sufficiently train residents in timber frame construction could impact RUSS’s loan, and therefore a contractor had been employed. However, Ernst stressed opportunities existed for keen RUSS members to participate:

(…) Residents who are really interested and have the time to be involved early on in the process, they could become apprentices (…) As the construction goes further, the self-builders could work a bit more independently. They would still have supervision, but they could be doing the majority of the package (see appendix B).

Therefore, for those wanting experience, training opportunities could still be provided, with more work by residents on site equating to financial benefits, such as discounted housing costs. Sarah outlined that although Architype had not specifically addressed gender in the proposal, in her engagement with residents she felt it was broadly mixed. She stated:

Some women [said] they really wanted to be involved, and some men [said] they didn’t want to be involved (…) Maybe some households would do it slightly differently and split in more traditional ways. Like the woman will look after the kids while the man is (more on site). But it didn’t come across like that.

In concluding our discussion, we reflected on whether self-build creates more likelihood of gender equality in the construction sector. Ernst considered there to be potential, because “if everybody was going into it with [no knowledge], then no one has a particular advantage” (see appendix B). While neither RUSS nor Architype have placed emphasis on specifically incorporating women into the building process, I believe the employment of Walter Segal’s principles could be presented as a way to involve more women. The lack of presumption around ability could be conducive to engaging women on site, creating a working environment for both men and women to learn new skills. 4.4 Women’s Workshop: A Case Study In discussion with Jenny Pickerill, she described the importance of female-led training spaces, stating:

I think some of the most inspiring places are where they’ve said they’re going to do women only. (…) Until women don’t have to look over their shoulder all the time, that some bloke is going to come over and come and tell them how to redo something and mansplain it. It just becomes more accepted that women can absolutely build (see appendix C).

Pickerill comments that in some male environments’ women don’t ask as many questions, for fear of appearing “stupid”. In Northumbria the organisation Women’s Workshop offers all-female self-build workshops as a means to educate women in construction and design (2019). Across an extended period, women learned building techniques, culminating in the building of a facility to house the organisation. The legacy of the work has been validated by

aising the frame ng….

Wome Self b

Fourth Action ‘promoting equality within communities’

Working safely with tools

g together as a team

Figure 16: Fourth Action women’s self-build, Northumberland (Kelly n.d.)

…by working together as a team

A Walter Segal tim

several participants who subsequently gained further training in the sector. Through this invaluable experience one participant, Val, pursued a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 2, and stated her aim to train other women in the profession (Women’s Workshop 2019). The hands-on practice allowed women to gain relevant experience, affirm their skills and envisage a future in the sector. The Women’s Workshop provides a safe introduction to the construction profession. The self-build model’s strength is in making no assumption that participants have previous knowledge, and therefore providing an opportunity to train participants with no prior experience. By further facilitating this in an all-female environment, women have been demonstrated to thrive, not inhibited by the fear of making mistakes or appearing uninformed.

4.5 Can Self-Build Schemes Address the Fallacy of Female Inability With a need to drastically increase the housing market, self-build homes offer a partial solution. As argued previously, the employment of more women in the construction sector is a method of tackling this, and the techniques of self-build could be embraced to help deliver this. As outlined in Pickerill’s research, the discourse about women’s physical capabilities is often informed by the way women have habitually been conditioned by society to be delicate, while men are praised for being strong (2015). These suppositions have been used to deny women employment on site, arguing that they won’t be able to manage the workload (Smith 2013). By contrast, self-build techniques, as espoused by Walter Segal, deliver the prospect of gaining experience in the sector. RUSS and Women’s Workshop demonstrate that it is possible to engage novices in building practice, with Women’s Workshop specifically modelling how an all-women site can offer room to ask questions and learn, unimpeded by patriarchal expectations. I therefore suggest self-build could be appropriated as a teaching device, providing women with the skills to design and construct on site, with the benefit of providing additional homes.

Chapter 05

Robotics

5.1 Overview of Robotics The deployment of robotics by the construction industry offers great material efficiencies, financial savings, and the potential to operate equipment offsite or as an in-situ fabrication process (Gramazio and Köhler 2014). In Farmer’s 2016 investigation of the construction sector he put forward recommendations for greater automated design processes, citing the need for the sector to modernise, and suggesting the harnessing of robotics (Farmer 2016, p.59). The growing adoption of robotic methods is reflected in statistics published by the advisory firm Mordor Intelligence, who stated that while the global industrial robotics market is currently valued at 18.05 billion USD, it is expected to rise by 12.15% by 2024 (Mordor Intelligence 2018). The word ‘robotics’ is a comprehensive term used to describe ‘programmable automated mechanisms’ (Calderone 2015) that support digital practices. Typically, robotics requires human intervention in the preliminary stages of practices, with processes guided by 3D computer modelled designs (Urhal et al 2019, p.342) that support precision and ease in customisation (Sarafian 2017). Although there are many possible types of robotics, constructional robotics can be broadly categorised, presented in figures 17 and 18. 5.2 Drive for Women in STEM Subjects Robotics is classified as a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) profession, (STEMpedia 2018). In the UK, STEM employment will increase as new technologies and techniques emerge, with UK predictions anticipating a 3.1% increase in jobs per year between 2018 and 2026 (Emsi 2018, p.4). In a UK government report, women were stated to represent only 8% of those in STEM apprenticeships (Great Britain 2018e), with the WISE Campaign (2018) additionally stating women account for only 22% of the STEM workforce. This imbalance is often attributed to how STEM subjects are presented to young women during their education, with gender bias in the STEM fields and lack of emphasis on STEM careers being a viable choice (PwC 2017, p.6; Sullivan 2018). This underutilisation of the female workforce has direct repercussions on our economy; in a report by The Institution of Engineering and Technology (2015) it was suggested improving employment of women in STEM professions could contribute an extra £2 billion to the UK economy. Efforts are being made to remedy this gender inequality. In a report ordered by the House of Commons (2018), recommendations suggested setting specific targets for women’s involvement in STEM learning programmes (Great Britain 2018f, p.6), while organisations such as WISE, Science Grrl, and STEMNET are working to engage young women in the profession through educational and mentoring support.

Additive Manufacturing In this robotic method materials are deposited layer-by-layer, allowing intricate forms to emerge. There are seven principal types of additive manufacturing:

VAT Photopolymerisation

Aided by a computer, a vat of liquid polymer resin is exposed to UV light, and cures dependent on areas exposed (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.1).

Powder Bed Fusion

Powdered materials are melted and combined using a heat source, such as electron beam or laser (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.1).

Binder Jetting (3D Printing)

Thin layers of powdered materials and liquid bonding agents create a form layer by layer. A multitude of binders can be adopted (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.1).

Material Jetting

Droplets of material are placed layer by layer and treated with UV light (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.1).

Sheet Lamination

Refers to either ultrasonic additive manufacturing or laminated object manufacturing, where materials are applied in sheets and fused by ultrasonic welding (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.2).

Material Extrusion

Material is fed through a nozzle in tracks onto a surface layer by layer (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.2).

Directed Energy Deposition

Similar to the material extrusion process, although nozzle can move in multiple axis (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d., p.2).

Figure 17: Additive Manufacturing Classification (Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies n.d.)

Industrial Robots This practice characteristically refers to robotic arms, which can perform a variety of tasks (Braumann and Cokcan 2012), such as 3D-scanning or milling (Braumann and Cokcan 2012). There are five primary types of industrial robots:

Cartesian

These robots operate in linear movements in three dimensions, sliding the head of the machine across the axis of the frame (Marquiss, 2018).

Cylindrical

This technology operates similarly to cartesian, except its cylindrical form allows its head to rotate 360 degrees (Marquiss, 2018).

SCARA (Selective Compliance Assembly Robot Arm) This system has rotary motion, and can move in x, y and z axis (Marquiss, 2018).

6-Axis

These robots operate similarly to an arm, allowing flexible movements across different planes (Marquiss, 2018).

Delta

Characteristically, these robots have three arms, suspended from their main body, and allow quick movement (Marquiss, 2018).

Figure 18: Industrial Robots Classification (Marquiss, 2018)

40.00 35.00

Revenue in USD per billion

30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00

24 20

23 20

22 20

21 20

20 20

19 20

0.00

Figure 19: Industrial Robots Market Globally, 2018-2024 (Mordor Intelligence 2018?)

In particular, several reports have explored robotic technology as a tool to engage young women in STEM subjects (Doyle et al 2018; Master et al 2017, Venture 2014; Williams 2014). In a study by Keller and John (2019) female and male high school students were introduced to robotics technologies and surveyed before and after. Prior to the robotics programme, one-fifth of female students showed an interest in Computer Sciences (CS) compared with one-quarter of males (2019, p.208). However, after the session, an additional half of the female cohort were interested in CS, compared with a further one-quarter of male students (2019, p.108). Using robotics as a relatively inexpensive educational tool can challenge gender stereotypes about female ability in STEM, by providing a nurturing and fun environment for students to practice robotics programming and coding (Venture 2014, p.130). This has repercussions for the construction industry, with heightened interest in STEM subjects during education, reflected by a greater graduate workforce (PwC 2017, p.11). 5.3 Robotics in Action Gabriella Rossi, architect and research and teaching assistant at KADK, and Hannah Arkell, part II architectural assistant, are both graduates from KADK, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation. During their masters’ degrees at KADK, both were part of the CITA (Centre for Information Technology and Architecture) research studio exploring ‘the intersections between architecture and digital technologies’ (CITA n.d.). In the interviews I conducted with Gabriella and Hannah, they both discussed the

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Digital should not be seen as a caprice of sexy forms; digital is the only viable way to make the construction industry more efficient, to reduce the carbon footprint of our buildings, and to design better places to live for everyone. â&#x20AC;? Gabriella Rossi

Figure 20: Hannah Arkell, Plexus 21: The Space of Man (Arkell 2019)

potential for robotics to support innovative design processes. Hannah’s thesis project ‘Plexus’ explored the deployment of natural fibres as sustainable and architecturally engaging materials, utilising robotics filament-winding techniques to achieve intricate geometries with the fibres. Gabriella further discussed robotics as an ‘auxiliary’ tool for humans, offering ‘bespoke differentiation, which might be the door to a more sustainable construction industry’ (see appendix E). In discussion with Hannah about her experiences with robotic technology, I asked whether she thought digital practices could increase female representation in the construction sector. Hannah considered there to be potential scope: I think the forums and open source ethos behind computational knowledge is equally inclusive to males and females. Robotic Fabrication Methods are not hands on/labour intensive and therefore the stereotypical view that a man would be more able is removed (see appendix D). In contrast, Gabriella was more sceptical. During her previous roles as a Computational Design Specialist at Odico, an architectural and constructional robotics company, she commented she was ‘the only female in a technical role, versus 15 males, they had to order working gear specifically for me’ (see appendix E). While Gabriella noted during her bachelor’s degree her classes were almost 50/50 male to female ratio, she described few of her female peers choosing to specialise in digital fabrication and computational design. Gabriella emphasised a discriminatory narrative within society as deterring women from occupying more roles in the sector. Her comments demonstrated a requirement for greater education in digital practices to increase female participation, mirroring recommendations made in the studies referred to earlier (Keller and John 2019; Williams 2014; Doyle et al 2018). Gabriella’s experiences further allude to a need for more role models in digital practices. Existing stereotypes about women’s limited success in this sector must be eradicated by celebrating the achievements of women currently in the industry. 5.4 Robotics Engineering Presented as a Viable Occupation for Women? Organisations and institutions, such as WISE and STEMNET, have been shown to be making concerted efforts to improve participation rates of women in STEM subjects and robotics, recognising the necessity to employ a greater female workforce in this emerging industry. I believe the interviews I conducted, and the existing research I have presented, for example, PwC’s report (2017) demonstrate the need for more visible role models in the robotics sector to encourage more women into the industry. However, it is also clear that currently there isn’t the capacity to utilise robotics at the rate necessary to meet current demand, because financiers and insurers do not support companies wishing to engage in this area (Delgado et al 2019; Construction Manager 2019). In our interview Gabriella described the sector’s current ‘reliance on human labour’. She stated that the implementation of robotics more widely ‘completely toppl(es) contractors’ [current] business model’, and therefore has made the industry ‘resistant to innovation because it involves a large financial risk’ (see appendix E). Therefore, although the argument for greater deployment of digital practices and robotics in construction has been consistently advocated (Farmer 2016; Great Britain 2018a), it is evident the sector is not yet able to embrace the technology extensively across the sector.

Conclusion

The Way Forward

This dissertation has presented sustainable and modern construction technologies as methods to address gender inequality in the construction sector. Through interviews, case studies and research on these systems, I have shown how offsite manufacturing, self-build housing, and robotics have, in different ways, the potential to be utilised as tools to increase the size of the female workforce. Offsite manufacturing fosters stable working environments, offering fixed working locations, a level of automation and safety measures that support all the workforce. It is less conducive to discrimination, because it negates the presumption that women cannot commit to construction because of familial responsibilities or physical capacity. Self-build housing can offer an opportunity to engage women in a construction education and give them the requisite skills to pursue a career in the sector. Walter Segal’s model was specifically intended to be constructed by those interested in this mode of construction, regardless of gender. Similar to offsite manufacturing, self-build challenges the myth that women are not as physically able as men to construct. Robotics is an emerging technology that presents an opportunity to increase the number of female STEM professionals in the construction industry. STEM learning programmes in the UK have been initiated to address the underrepresentation of women in the workforce, while robotics has been employed as a device to increase women’s interest in construction technologies. Although I contend that all of these technologies can be harnessed as methods to tackle the underrepresentation of women in the sector, I also acknowledge this will occur at different rates. Offsite manufacturing has a more immediate capacity to increase its female workforce, hastened by the Government’s present ‘presumption in favour’ of offsite manufacturing (Great Britain 2017a, p.139). In the midterm there therefore exists an opportunity for more women to be appointed in offsite manufacturing construction roles, as a result of the technology’s fast development and implementation. Low impact self-build models should be embraced in tandem with other contemporary construction methods. I have presented the argument that as a global economy we must strive to embrace sustainable building technologies, and self-build offers an example of this. In conversation with Jenny Pickerill she argued the necessity of an evolving self-build movement but was sceptical about its potential rapid emergence in the UK. As a consequence, I would argue that self-build should be regarded as an educational tool of engagement for a future female workforce. By contrast, robotics technologies are not yet readily able to meet current construction demands. Although global predictions anticipate a greater uptake of industrial robotics in the construction market (Mordor Intelligence 2018), the technology is not currently adequately insured, thus reducing the number of construction companies

“We all bring different things whatever our gender. We are all going to have different skills and capabilities, and creativity to look at something” Jenny Pickerill

willing to invest in this innovation (Delgado et al 2019). As the robotics market grows, women will inevitably be part of this developing workforce, particularly in STEM professions, however this is will be a long-term ambition until the sector more universally implements this technology. These construction methods must, however, be incorporated in partnership with concerted efforts to reform the construction sector’s overriding inequality. Without redressing prevalent issues in the construction sector, such as misogyny, bad site practices, and inflexible working environments, we cannot expect to see radical changes across the industry and an increase in the number of its female workforce. I am also compelled by the belief we must encourage more women into the construction sector, not just as part of an agenda for equality, but because our economy demands it: without an increasing workforce we cannot contribute to a competitive construction market. Most importantly, the users of our built environment encompass a diverse group of individuals, and yet the construction sector is not reflective of its female population. In an interview conducted on the BBC, Roma Agrawal, a structural engineer, stated ‘(…) the main point is [that if] we are designing for society, we have to reflect that society if we are going to do our best’ (Women In Construction 2019). We must endeavor to remedy the inequality in Britain’s construction sector, because we need to create a fair and nurturing industry for an entire workforce.

Bibliography Ackrill, R., Caven, V., and Alaktif, J., (2017). ‘Black Boxes’ and ‘fracture points’: the regulation of gender equality in the UK and French construction industries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 28(21), 3027-3046. Benson, M., and Hamiduddin., I., (2017). Self-Build Homes. London: UCL Press. Bindel, J., Can she fix it? The Guardian [online]. 14th August 2006. [16th August 2019]. Available from: theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/14/gender.uk Blackwell, M., Blofeld, S., Bryer, L., Cavin, L., Davis, R., Ward, D., Wilen, A., Pottier, F., (2018). UK Industry Performance Report. London: Glenigan. Calderone, L., (2015). Robots in Architecture. Robotics Tomorrow. [12th August 2019]. Available from: roboticstomorrow.com/article/2013/07/robots-inarchitecture/180/ Clarke, L., Michielsens, E., Snijders, S., Wall, C., Dainty, A., Bagilhole, B., and Barnard, S., (2015). ‘No more softly, softly’: Review of women in the construction workforce. Britain: University of Westminster. CITA., (n.d.). CITA. KADK. [10th September 2019]. Available from: kadk.dk/en/CITA Committee on Climate Change., (2019). Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming [online]. London: Committee on Climate Change. [8 March 2019]. Available from: theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-The-UKscontribution-to-stopping-global-warming.pdf Construction Manager., (2019). The rise of construction robotics [online]. UK Construction Week. [30th August 2019]. Available from: ukconstructionweek.com/ news/the-rise-of-construction-robotics--construction-buzz-219 Construction Skills., (2009). Sector Skills Assessment for the Construction Sector 2009: Construction Skills UK Report. England. Construction Skills. Davey, C.L., Davidson, M.J., Fielden, S.L., and Gale, A.W., (2000). Women in construction: the untapped resource. Construction Management & Economics. 18(1), 113-121. Delgado, J.M.D., Oyedele, L., Ajayi, A., Akanbi, L., Akinade, O., Bilal, M., and Owolabi, H., (2019). Robotics and automated systems in construction: Understanding industry specific challenges for adoption. Journal of Building Engineering. 26, 1-11. Dey, A., (2018). Where are the women? [online]. Unity Homes. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: unityhomes.com/where-are-the-women/

Doyle, S.E., Forehand, L., Hunt, E., Loughrey, N., Schneider, S., Senske, N.S., (2018). Cyborg Sessions: A Case Study for Gender Equity in Technology. International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), May 16 2018, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. United States: Iowa State University. Available at: papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2018_259.pdf Emsi., (2018)., Focus on the Demand for STEM Jobs & Skills in Britain [online]. Basingstoke: Emsi. [30th August 2019]. Available from: economicmodelling.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Report_vWEB.pdf England: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government., (2018c)., Housing supply; net additional dwellings, England: 2017-18. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. [5th January 2019]. Available from: assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/756430/Housing_Supply_England_2017-18.pdf England. Select Committee on Economic Affairs., (2016). Building more homes HL Paper 20, 1st Report of Session 2016 – 2017 [online]. London: House of Lords. [16 August 2019]. Available from: publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ ldeconaf/20/20.pdf Farmer, M., (2016). Modernise or Die: The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model. London: Construction Leadership Council. Farmer, M., (2019). Modern Methods of Construction: introducing the MMC definition framework [online]. Great Britain: MHCLG Joint Industry Working Group. [16th August 2019]. Available from: cast-consultancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MMC-IPad-base_GOVUK-FINAL_SECURE.pdf Gilbert, M.A., (2009). Defeating Bigenderism: Changing Gender Assumptions in the Twenty‐first Century. Hypatia. 24(3), 93-122. Goulding, J.S., Rahimian, F., Arif, A., and Sharp, M.D., (2007). New offsite production and business models in construction: priorities for the future research agenda. Architectural Engineering and Design Management. 11(3), 163-184. [12th August 2019]. Available from: constructionmanagermagazine.com/client_media/pdfcontent/ Construction_Manager_May_2018.pdf Grahame, A., ‘This isn’t at all like London’: life in Walter Segal’s self-build ‘anarchist’ estate. The Guardian [online]. 16th September 2015. [16th August 2019]. Available from: theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/16/anarchism-community-walter-segal-selfbuild-south-london-estate Gramazio, F., and Köhler, M., (2014). Made by Robots: Challenging Architecture at the Large Scale. London: Architectural Design. Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, (2018a). Construction Sector Deal [online]. London: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. [30 August 2019]. Available from: assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731871/constructionsector-deal-print-single.pdf

Great Britain. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, (2018d). Forging our Future: Industrial strategy – the story so far [online]. London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills. [8 March 2019]. Available from: assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/762215/181205_BEIS_ OYO_Brochure_print.pdf Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy., (2017a). Industrial Strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future [online]. London: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. [30 August 2019]. Available from: assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/664563/industrial-strategy-white-paper-web-ready-version.pdf Great Britain. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, (2013). UK Construction: An Economic Analysis of the Sector [online]. London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills.[8 March 2019]. Available from: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210060/bis-13-958-ukconstruction-an-economic-analysis-of-sector.pdf Great Britain. Department for Communities and Local Government., (2017b). Fixing our broken housing market [online]. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. [30 August 2019]. Available from: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590464/Fixing_our_broken_ housing_market_-_print_ready_version.pdf Great Britain. Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee., (2019b). Modern Methods of Construction, Fifteenth session [online]. London: House of Commons. [30 August 2019]. Available from: publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/1831/1831.pdf Great Britain. House of Commons., (2018c). Construction industry: statistics and policy 01432, [online]. London: House of Commons. [30 August 2019]. Available from: researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01432/SN01432.pdf Great Britain. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts., (2018f). Delivering STEM skills for the economy. Forty-Seventh Report of Session 2017–19 [online]. London: House of Commons. [30th August 2019]. Available from: publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/691/691.pdf Great Britain. House of Commons Library., (2019c). Women and the Economy. London: House of Commons. Gurjao, S., (2006). Inclusivity: The Changing Role of Women in the Construction Workforce. Bracknell: The Chartered Institute of Building. Håål, E.K., Liljestrand, and M., Myrén, K., (2017). More women in industry and commerce – this is what attractive employers do. Stockholm: Svenskt Naringsliv. Hairstans, R., (2014). Building offsite: an introduction. Edinburgh: UK Commission for Employment and Skills. Home Builders Federation., (2013). Home Building Skills Research Report 2013. London: Home Builders Federation.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., (2018) Global warming of 1.5°C: Summary for Policymakers. [online]. Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [20 December 2018]. Available from: ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/ sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_High_Res.pdf Jeffrey, D., (2016). Walter’s Way: The Self Build Revolution. Homebuilding & Renovating. [online]. 1st February 2016. [5th January 2019]. Available from: homebuilding.co.uk/walters-way-the-self-build-revolution/ Keller, L., and John, I., (2019). How Can Computer Science Faculties Increase the Proportion of Women in Computer Science by Using Robots? 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, 9th-11th April 2019, American University in Dubai [online]. Dubai: EDUCON. [12th August 2019]. Available from: ieeexplore-ieee-org. sheffield.idm.oclc.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=872521 Kohler, N., König, H., Kreissig, J., Lützkendorf, T., (2010). A life cycle approach to buildings. Regensburg: DETAIL. Lindbäck, S., (2017). Efficient production and assembly of customer-specific multistorey houses from space modules with architectural freedom. International Wood Construction Conference (IHF), 6th – 8th December 2017, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Germany: Internationales Holzbau-Forum. Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., and Meltzoff, A., (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology [online]. 160, 92–106. [12th August 2019]. Available from: ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/17Master_Cheryan_Moscatelli_Meltzoff_STEM_ programming_1st%20grade_0.pdf Maxey, L., and Pickerill, J., (2009). Low Impact Development: The Future in Our Hands. Leicester: University of Leicester Department of Geography. McKinsey & Company., (2015). Diversity Matters [online]. New York: McKinsey & Company. [7 March 2019]. Available from: assets.mckinsey.com/~/media/857F440109AA4D13A54D9C496D86ED58.ashx Miller, A. E. J., MacDougall, J. D., Tarnopolsky, M. A., and Sale, D. G., (1992). Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 66, 254-262. Mordor Intelligence., (2018). Industrial Robotics Market - Growth, Trends, and Forecast (2019 - 2024). [online]. Mordor Intelligence. [12th August 2019]. Available from: mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/industrial-robotics-market Munn, M., (2014). Building the future: women in construction. London: The Smith Institute. National Self Build Association., (2011). An Action Plan to promote the growth of self build housing: The report of the Self Build Government-Industry Working Group. Swindon: National Self Build Association

Oakley, M., (2017). The Value of Off-site Construction to UK Productivity and Growth. Middlesex: WPI Economics Limited. Offsite Hub. (2019). Offsite has ‘potential to increase diversity’ [online]. Offsite Hub. [12 March 2019]. Available from: offsitehub.co.uk/industry-news/news/offsite-haspotential-to-increase-diversity/ Office for National Statistics. (2018). Employment by Occupation. London: Office for National Statistics. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: ons.gov.uk/ employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/ employmentbyoccupationemp04 Opoku, A., and Williams, N., (2019). Second-generation gender bias: An exploratory study of the women’s leadership gap in a UK construction organisation. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. 35, 2-23. Pickerill, J. (2015). Bodies, building and bricks: Women architects and builders in eight eco-communities in Argentina, Britain, Spain, Thailand and USA. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. 22(7). pp. 901-919. Pickerill, J. (2017). Critically Interrogating Eco-Homes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 41(2). pp. 353 - 365. Pinoncely, V., and Belcher, E., (2018). Made for London: Realising the potential of Modern Methods of Construction. London: Centre for London. Planning Committee., (2016). Rapporteur review: The potential of modular housing to help solve London’s housing crisis. London: London Assembly. PwC., (2017). Women in Tech: Time to close the gender gap [online]. London: PwC. [30th August 2019]. Available from: pwc.co.uk/women-in-technology/women-in-techreport.pdf Pye Tait Consulting., (2017). Faster, Smarter, More Efficient: Building Skills for Offsite Construction. Norfolk: CITB. Randstad. (2018). Women in Construction: The Race to Gender Equality [online]. Bedfordshire: Randstad. [8 March 2019]. Available from: www.randstad. co.uk/employers/areas-of-expertise/construction-and-property/cpe_women-inconstruction_2018_.pdf Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)., (2018). Modern Methods of Construction: A forward-thinking solution to the housing crisis? [online]. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. [16 August 2019]. Available from: rics. org/globalassets/rics-website/media/news/news--opinion/modern-methods-ofconstruction-paper-rics.pdf Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS)., (n.d a) About. [online]. Rural Urban Synthesis Society. [12th August 2019]. Available from: theruss.org/about/ Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS)., (n.d b) Church Grove project. [online]. Rural Urban Synthesis Society. [12th August 2019]. Available from: theruss.org/projects/ church-grove/

Sarafian, J., (2017). Robots in Architecture. Form Found Design. [12th August 2019]. Available from: formfounddesign.com/single-post/2017/06/23/Robots-in-Architecture Shepherd, C., (2017). The gender and age profile of the house-building sector [online]. Milton Keynes: NHBC Foundation [5th January 2019]. Available from: nhbcfoundation.org/publication/the-gender-and-age-profile-of-the-house-buildingsector/ Smith., L. (2013). Trading in gender for women in trades: embodying hegemonic masculinity, femininity and being a gender hotrod. Construction Management and Economics. 31(8), 861-873. Smith, S., (2012). International Encyclopaedia of Housing and Home. Oxford: Elsevier. STEMpedia., (2018). Robotics and STEM Education. STEMpedia. [12th August 2019]. Available from: thestempedia.com/blog/robotics-and-stem-education/ Sullivan, A., and Bers, M. U., (2018). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education [online]. [12th August 2019]. Available from: link-springer-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y.pdf Sunindijo, R.Y., and Kamardeen, I., (2017). Work Stress Is a Threat to Gender Diversity in the Construction Industry. Journal Of Construction Engineering And Management. 143(10), 163-184 SunPine., (2018)., SunPine’s Sustainability Award goes to Lindbäck’s Group [online]. SunPine. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: sunpine.se/en/pressmeddelanden/ sunpines-hallbarhetspris-till-lindbacks-group/ Taylor, S., (2009). Offsite Production in the UK Construction Industry: A Brief Overview. United Kingdom: HSE. Turner Wood, R., (2019). Can the choice of building method be a device to address gender inequality in the construction sector?: Preliminary Submission. England: University of Sheffield. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose., (2019). A Mission-Oriented UK Industrial Strategy. [online]. London: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. [16th August 2019]. Available from: ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/publicpurpose/files/190515_iipp_report_moiis_final_artwork_digital_export.pdf UK Commission for Employment and Skills., (2012). Sector Skills Insights: Construction [online]. Wath-upon-Dearne: UK Commission for Employment and Skills. [8 March 2019]. Available from: dera.ioe.ac.uk/15035/1/evidence-report-50construction.pdf Urhal, P., Weightman, A., Diver, C., and Bartolo, P., (2019). Robot assisted additive manufacturing: A review. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 59, 335345.

Venture, G., (2014). Can Robots in Classrooms Attract More Women to Engineering? IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine [online]. 130-131. [12th August 2019]. Available from: ieeexplore-ieee-org.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/stamp/stamp. jsp?tp=&arnumber=6990867 Ward, C., (n.d) Walter Segal [online]. Segal Self Build. [30 August 2019]. Available from: segalselfbuild.co.uk/about.html Williams, K., (2015). Girls, Boys and ‘Bots. IEEE Women in Engineering Magazine [online]. 25-28. [12th August 2019]. Available from: ieeexplore-ieee-org.sheffield.idm. oclc.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7105484&tag=1 WISE Campaign. (2018). 2018 Workforce Statistics [online]. WISE Campaign. [12 March 2019]. Available from: wisecampaign.org.uk/statistics/2018-workforce-statistics/ Women In Construction [online]., (2019). BBC. 25th August 2019, 10:00. [26th August 2019]. Available from: bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007wsf Women’s Workshop., (2019). What We Offer [online]. Women’s Workshop. [4th January 2019]. Available from: womensworkshop.net/what-we-offer/ Worrall, L., Harris, K., Stewart, R., Thomas, A., and McDermott, P., (2009). Barriers to women in the UK construction industry. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. 17(3), 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), 832-844. Wright, T., (2014). The Women into Construction Project: an assessment of a model for increasing women’s participation in construction. London: Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London. Wright, T., (2015). New development: Can ‘social value’ requirements on public authorities be used in procurement to increase women’s participation in the UK construction industry? Public Money & Management. 35(2), 135-140.

References Akadiri, P., Chinyio, E., and Olomolaiye, P., (2012). Design of A Sustainable Building: A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Sustainability in the Building Sector. Buildings. 2, 126-152 Ashurst., (2018). Off-site manufacturing [online]. Ashurst. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/off-site-manufacturing/ Borer, P., and Harris, C., (1997). Out of the Woods: Environmental Timber Frame Design for Self Build. 2nd Edition. Powys: The Centre for Alternative Technology. Braumann, J., and Cokcan, S-B., (2012). Digital and Physical Tools for Industrial Robots in Architecture: Robotic Interaction and Interfaces. International Journal of Architectural Computing. 4(10), 541-554 Broome, J., and Richardson, B., (1991). The Self-build Book. Devon: Green Books. Byrne, J., Clarke, L., and Meer, M.V.D., (2005). Gender and ethnic minority exclusion from skilled occupations: a Western European comparison. Construction Management and Economics. 23, 1025–1034. Cartlidge, L., (2006). “Do you know that?” - Stories of making self-build eco-homes. MA Thesis, University of Sheffield, Department of Town and Regional Planning. Clarke, L., and Wall, C., (2006). Omitted from history: women in the building trades. Dunkeld, M., Campbell, J., Louw, H., Tutton, M., Addis, B., Powell, C. and Thorne, R. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Construction History, 29th March - 2nd April 2006, Queen’s College, Cambridge University [online]. Cambridge: Construction History Society, 35-39. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: arct.cam. ac.uk/Downloads/ichs/vol-1-35-60-clarke.pdf Criado-Perez, C., (2019). Invisible Women. London: Penguin Books. Dainty, A., et al., (2004) Creating Equality in the Construction Industry: An Agenda for Change For Women and Ethnic Minorities. Journal of Construction Research. 5(1). Denigan, C., (2018). Women’s Home-made Houses: Sex, Gender and Self-build Housing in Australia 1970-2014. Ph.D. thesis, Deakin University. [4th January 2019]. Available from: dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30113106/denigan-womenshome-2018. pdf Eichler, M., (1997). Feminist Methodology. Current Sociology. 45(2), 9-36. England. The House of Commons Library, (2018a). Tackling the under-supply of housing in England. London: The House of Commons Library.

England. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2018b). House building; new build dwellings England: December Quarter 2018. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. [5th January 2019]. Available from: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/790069/House_Building_Release_Dec_2018.pdf European Institute for Gender Equality., (2016). Economic Benefits of Gender Equality in the European Union. Lithuania: The European Institute for Gender Equality. European Institute for Gender Equality., (2017). Measuring gender equality in the European Union 2005-2015. Belgium: European Union. Galea, N., Powell, A., Loosemore, M., and Chappell, L., (2015). Designing robust and revisable policies for gender equality: lessons from the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics. 33(5-6), 375-389. Gerrard, N., (2018a). Closing the gap. Construction Manager. 5, 4-5. [16th August 2019]. Available from: constructionmanagermagazine.com/client_media/pdfcontent/ Construction_Manager_May_2018.pdf Gerrard, N., (2018b). Steel and BIM Leading the Way? Construction Manager. 5, 2628. [16th August 2019]. Available from: constructionmanagermagazine.com/client_ media/pdfcontent/Construction_Manager_May_2018.pdf Gov.UK., (2019). The Grand Challenge missions. [online]. Gov.UK. [8 March 2019]. Available from: gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy-the-grandchallenges/missions Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, (2018e). Delivering STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills for the economy [online]. London: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. [30 August 2019]. Available from: nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DeliveringSTEM-Science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-skills-for-the-economy.pdf Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy., (2017c). Delivering STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) skills for the economy [online]. London: National Audit Office. [30 August 2019]. Available from: nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Delivering-STEM-Science-technologyengineering-and-mathematics-skills-for-the-economy.pdf Great Britain. Government Equalities Office, (2019a). Gender Equality Monitor[online]. London: Government Equalities Office. [30 August 2019]. Available from: assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/814080/GEO_GEEE_Strategy_Gender_Equality_Monitor_tagged.pdf Great Britain. Science and Technology Select Committee, (2018b). Off-site manufacture for construction: Building for change HL Paper 169, 2017 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2019. London: Authority of the House of Lords. Habitat for Humanity., (2017) Why Women Build? [online]. Habitat for Humanity. [5th January 2019]. Available from: habitatforhumanity.org.uk/get-involved/volunteerabroad/women-build/

Hairstans, R., (2016). Building Off-Site [online]. Journal of the National Institute of Building Sciences. 2 – 6. [11 March 2019]. Available from: napier.ac.uk/~/media/ worktribe/output-168749/nibs0416offsitehrpdf.pdf Homag., (2017). Europe’s most modern manafacturing plant is arised at [online]. Habitat for Humanity. [5th January 2019]. Available from: homag.com/en/news-events/ news/article/europes-most-modern-manufacturing-plant-is-arised-at-lindbaecks/ Hunt, V., Layton, D., and Prince, S., (2015). Why diversity matters. United States: McKinsey & Company. Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies., (n.d.). 7 Families of Additive Manufacturing. [online]. Additive Manufacturing. [12th August 2019]. Available from: additivemanufacturing.media/cdn/cms/7_families_print_version.pdf The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)., (2015). Women in Stem [online]. Warwick: The Institution of Engineering and Technology. Available from: warwick. ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/about/athenaswan/edit-contents/women_in_stem_bro.pdf Jeffrey, D., (n.d) Self-build: A man’s world? Homebuilding & Renovating [online]. 99104. [23rd July 2019]. Available from: debbiejeffery.co.uk/pdf/Gender.pdf KPMG., (2016). Smart Construction: How offsite manufacturing can transform our industry. London: KPMG. Landman, M., (2006). Getting quality in qualitative research: A short introduction to feminist methodology and methods. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 65, 429-433. Lloyd, K., Why Bob the Builder is keeping women out of construction. The Guardian [online]. 23rd July 2014. [16th August 2019]. Available from: theguardian.com/womenin-leadership/2014/jul/23/why-bob-the-builder-is-keeping-women-out-of-construction London Assembly., (2013). Assessment of the GLA’s impact on gender equality. London: London Assembly. Matrix., (1984). Making Space: Women and the Man-Made Environment. London: Pluto. Marquiss, R., (2018). Five Types of Industrial Robots And How To Choose The Best Fit. Manufacturing.net. [12th August 2019]. Available from: manufacturing.net/article/2018/03/five-types-industrial-robots-and-how-choose-best-fit Office for National Statistics., (2016). Women Shoulder the responsibility of ‘unpaid work’ [online]. Office for National Statistics. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: ons. gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ womenshouldertheresponsibilityofunpaidwork/2016-11-10 Orkidstudio., (2018). Women [online]. Orkidstudio. [5th January 2019]. Available from: orkidstudio.org/projects/women/ Paap, K., (2006). Working Construction: Why White Working-Class Men Put Themselves – and the Labor Movement – in Harm’s Way. United States of America: Cornell University Press.

Perraudin, F., What is gender pay gap reporting, and what does it mean? The Guardian [online]. 28th February 2019. [16th August 2019]. Available from: theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/28/what-is-gender-pay-gap-reporting-and-whatdoes-it-mean Peters, J., (2011). Equality and diversity: good practice for the construction sector. United Kingdom: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Planning Committee., (2016). Rapporteur review: The potential of modular housing to help solve Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing crisis. London: London Assembly. Piroozfar, P., and Farr, E., (2013). Evolution of Nontraditional Methods of Construction: 21st Century Pragmatic Viewpoint. Journal of Architectural Engineering. 19(2), 119 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 133. Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS)., (2018) Plans approved for innovative self-build training facility and community space in Ladywell. [online]. Rural Urban Synthesis Society. [12th August 2019]. Available from: theruss.org/2018/06/08/plansapproved-hub/ Shelter., (2018?). Building for our future: A vision for social housing. London: Shelter. Stead, P., (1979). Self-build housing groups and co-operatives: ideas in practice. London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society. Vestbro, D.U. and Horelli, L. (2012) Design for Gender Equality: The History of Cohousing Ideas and Realities. Built Environment. 38(3), 315-335. Wright, T., and Conley, H., (2018). Advancing gender equality in the construction sector through public procurement: Making effective use of responsive regulation. Economic and Industrial Democracy. 20(1), 1-22.

Figures Figure 01: Women in Construction by Profession, 2018 - redrawn by author Office for National Statistics. (2018). Employment by Occupation. London: Office for National Statistics. [22nd March 2019]. Available from: ons.gov.uk/ employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/ employmentbyoccupationemp04 Figure 02: Women at Work, Crossrail Clarke, L., Michielsens, E., Snijders, S., Wall, C., Dainty, A., Bagilhole, B., and Barnard, S., (2015). ‘No more softly, softly’: Review of women in the construction workforce. Britain: University of Westminster. Figure 03: Annual Housing supply, 2010 - 2018 - redrawn by author England: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government., (2018c)., Housing supply; net additional dwellings, England: 2017-18. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. [5th January 2019]. Available from: assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/756430/Housing_Supply_England_2017-18.pdf Figure 04: Women in Construction 2003/2004 & 2013 - redrawn by author Ackrill, R., Caven, V., and Alaktif, J., (2017). ‘Black Boxes’ and ‘fracture points’: the regulation of gender equality in the UK and French construction industries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 28(21), 3027-3046. Figure 05: Employment of women by industry, September 2018 - redrawn by author Great Britain. House of Commons Library., (2019c). Women and the Economy. London: House of Commons. Figure 06: The Grand Challenges to ‘put the United Kingdom at the forefront of the industries of the future’ - redrawn by author Great Britain. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy., (2017a). Industrial Strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future [online]. London: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. [30 August 2019]. Available from: assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/664563/industrial-strategy-white-paper-web-ready-version.pdf

Figure 07: Modern Methods of Construction, Classification - redrawn by author Farmer, M., (2019). Modern Methods of Construction: introducing the MMC definition framework [online]. Great Britain: MHCLG Joint Industry Working Group. [16th August 2019]. Available from: cast-consultancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MMC-IPad-base_GOVUK-FINAL_SECURE.pdf Figure 08: Dalston Lane, designed by architects Waugh Thistleton, using MMC techniques Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)., (2018). Modern Methods of Construction: A forward-thinking solution to the housing crisis? [online]. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. [16 August 2019]. Available from: rics. org/globalassets/rics-website/media/news/news--opinion/modern-methods-ofconstruction-paper-rics.pdf Figure 09: Offsite Manufacturing Categories - redrawn by author Taylor, S., (2009). Offsite Production in the UK Construction Industry: A Brief Overview. United Kingdom: HSE. Planning Committee., (2016). Rapporteur review: The potential of modular housing to help solve London’s housing crisis. London: London Assembly. Pinoncely, V., and Belcher, E., (2018). Made for London: Realising the potential of Modern Methods of Construction. London: Centre for London. Hairstans, R., (2014). Building offsite: an introduction. Edinburgh: UK Commission for Employment and Skills. Figure 10: Lindbäcks Bygg Offsite Manufacturing Factory Morley, J., (n.d.) Production Line: How Sweden Is Pioneering Automated, Prefab Timber Construction [online]. architizer. [12th August 2019]. Available from: architizer. com/blog/inspiration/industry/swedish-modular-housing/ Figure 11: Legal & General modular housing factory Wilmore, J., (2019). We take a look around L&G’s housing factory. [online]. Inside Housing. [12th August 2019]. Available from: insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/wetake-a-look-around-lgs-housing-factory-60136 Figure 12: Benefits of offiste manufacturing - redrawn by author Yorkon., (n.d.). Waste Reduction Potential of Offsite Volumetric Construction. Oxon: Yorkon. Figure 13: Self-build Homes, Global Statistics - redrawn by author National Self Build Association., (2011). An Action Plan to promote the growth of self build housing: The report of the Self Build Government-Industry Working Group. Swindon: National Self Build Association

Figure 14: RUSS, Ladywell Self-build Community Hub Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS)., (2019) Open House London: Ladywell Selfbuild Community Hub – 21st September [online]. Rural Urban Synthesis Society. [16th August 2019]. Available from: theruss.org/2019/09/06/hub-open-house-21sept/ Figure 15: Fourth Action women’s self-build, Northumberland Kelly, M., (n.d.) Mary Kelly, Chair [online]. Art Gene. [16th August 2019]. Available from: art-gene.co.uk/people/mary-kelly-chair/ Figure 16: Fourth Action women’s self-build, Northumberland Kelly, M., (n.d.) Mary Kelly, Chair [online]. Art Gene. [16th August 2019]. Available from: art-gene.co.uk/people/mary-kelly-chair/ Figure 17: Additive Manufacturing Classification - redrawn by author Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies., (n.d.). 7 Families of Additive Manufacturing [online]. Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies. [11th August 2019]. Available from: hybridmanutech.com/uploads/2/3/6/9/23690678/7_families_of_3d_printing_by_hybrid_ v9_2pps.pdf Figure 18: Industrial Robots Classification - redrawn by author Marquiss, R., (2018). Five Types of Industrial Robots And How To Choose The Best Fit. Manufacturing.net. [12th August 2019]. Available from: manufacturing.net/article/2018/03/five-types-industrial-robots-and-how-choose-best-fit Figure 19: Industrial Robots Market Globally, 2018-2024 - redrawn by author Mordor Intelligence., (2018?) Executive Summary [online]. Mordor Intelligence. [11th August 2019]. Available from: research.mordorintelligence.com/reports/industrialrobotics-market Figure 20: Hannah Arkell, Plexus 21: The Space of Man Arkell, H., (2019) Plexus: The Space of Man by Hannah Arkell [online]. KADK. [12th August 2019]. Available from: kadk.dk/en/project/plexus-space-man-hannah-arkell

Appendix Danna Walker Interview, 8th August 2019, 43:19 minutes (Conducted by phone) R – Rosa Turner Wood (Interviewer) D – Danna Walker, founder and director of Built By Us R: Why is it important to diversify the construction sector? D: I believe it’s important to diversify the sector because it would benefit the sector hugely, wider society, and women more generally. The first thing is thinking about sector. I find it absolutely fascinating; I’ve worked in it pretty much my entire career since the age of 16. I think what the sector doesn’t really get the benefit of is having a much wider talent pool which allows people with different approaches, and different points of view to come into the industry and answer some of the most important questions in a business – or in a sector – that people can, which is why. I see disruption with potentially the kind of non-text disruption that the industry needs. Many of our processes, approaches, methodologies and ways of working date back quite a long time ago, and it’s interesting to speak to people who are slightly older than me who’ve worked in the industry for a long time and say if you went on a flight now back to 50, or even 100 years ago, it’s not that different. While we have an increased use of technology, I don’t think - because we tended to have a very similar approach to recruitment, to jobs that people might be doing, and the ways of working - that we’re seeing quite enough innovation, change and evolution. I think that’s the thing that I think making a change and bringing in a much larger number of women in the industry could make. And then there’s the issue of talent. Time and time again when we’re looking at educational outcome, for example. What we’re seeing in terms of representation across the sector is that many women who go through higher education are going more towards law and medicine. Incredibly bright individuals who see an opportunity to maybe make a difference or to do something challenging or interesting. I think the sector is an opportunity to make a difference, but we haven’t made the case clearly enough that we really want that kind of talent coming into our sector. I think it’s the same case for trade and craft area which is very interesting. I started as an electrician myself, and at the time I was one-of-one. It was incredibly unusual at that time, and if you look at the numbers now it hasn’t changed very much – I think it’s under 1% of those in trade and craft are women. But being a skilled opportunity, they are better paid, and they can offer – particularly for those working for themselves - opportunities to be flexible and earn a good salary. I think traditionally where we’d had a gendercoded approach to work women have been encouraged to go to care, clerical, catering – there are about five themes. They tend to be slightly lower paid. I think that’s an issue in terms of equality pay gap, and women having paying skills they can make more money from and better support themselves.

I think the final thing is the work environment itself. It’s an interesting issue that we have something that’s fundamentally important to the way we live, the way our cities are designed or transport infrastructure - everything. But we have a narrow group of people making these decisions about how that works and why it is what it is. I think people being able to raise this issue at the round table and being part of a debate about a more inclusive work environment. [Inaudible]. R: Do you think there any specifics in the ways in which the construction sector could be addressing this? Any measures or means? D: Yeah, it’s an interesting one because the challenge is huge. If you look at the ONS figures for female representation in construction they haven’t changed much over the last 20 years. We’ve certainly seen pockets of improvement, for example the number of women in architecture going into architecture at university and becoming qualified architects, but in many areas this has stayed the same, so it doesn’t necessarily improve overall. We need to think about where are the areas and sectors that are doing far better than others, and why might that be. I’m amazed there’s far more women in leadership and in an operational role in the third sector and charities, and medicine, law and finance as well. I think when we’re looking at these sectors, they aim at communities much better in terms of what they do and how it can benefit the individual to be a part of that sector. They’re communicating the ‘why’ so well. They’ve been able to rethink the way people work by focusing on when they might be working and how they might be working. They’ve been able to provide better flexibility, more about the work as a whole. [Inaudible]. That’s where we’ve got a little bit stuck, because our processes haven’t changed very much we’ve created a situation where, for both men and women, it’s quite rigid. I’m always amazed and asked when I get in the back of a cab, they usually asked where I’m going, and I say I’m going to a construction site. They say “oh I used to work in construction”, and then they told me they left because of the lack of flexibility, and these are men saying this. That the lack of autonomy made them want to start their own businesses as taxi drivers, rather than staying in the industry. We don’t have to make this industry that tough, a lot of it is about a mental approach. A lot of it is about why; somebody didn’t bother to organise something properly, or there are difficulties on site so you’re going to have to lump it. The way that has been solved by guys is toughen up. What are specific obstacles that obstruct gender equality in the construction sector? There will always be sites and projects that get this stuff right. Thankfully in the recent past there’s been an understanding that we should share these positive stories. The Olympics is a good example, and I’m sure cross-rail will do the same – these huge infrastructure projects. This is an opportunity for us to role model to the industry how it should be. But on the whole, that is a seen as a special, separate part of the sector, and what’s happening day to day doesn’t always reflect or engage with these projects. In terms of specific barriers, the first is image because in that moment you’re starting to concede that what you might do in your career and for the rest of your life, you’ve already gender coded work into different areas of expertise. Young women and girls particularly are told that engineering and construction aren’t for them. So when I work in primary schools, and actually when I was an architect working in primary school projects, it was so interesting that the children may have been 6, 7 or 8, and the first thing they did when they saw anyone in a hard hat was sing bob the builder. There was one little girl introduced to me by the head teacher who said this is the architect

of our new school, and the kid said oh hello Mr Lady Builder, and I thought that was so interesting. The head teacher was trying to encourage, saying this is a really interesting job would you be interested in this job, and the little girl shook her head as if she had suggested we go to the moon together. At that age, all young people are at the height of their imagination, but they already had a very fixed idea about what they could do – and that sticks with us. [Inaudible section]. Also the perception of the industry since there are pockets of really great behaviour. Such as thinking about the environment and who it’s impacted. [Inaudible]. In the culture, it can be very difficult to really be yourself. It can be a stressful industry as well. [Inaudible]. I think in terms of work environment, I run something called [Built By Us?]. I set that up because I could see people from diverse backgrounds who came into the industry had a much, much lower retention rate. That was related to opportunities to progress, the lack of role models. The idea really was to allow people to be matched with someone so that they could have a conversation about issues relating to diversity, how it impacts them, and how they can navigate through the culture that they work in. In some cases, it’s as simple as having a role model. The amount of women who come onto the program and say there’s no one in the offices I’ve worked in [inaudible]. I think there are a number of issues. I think as an industry we’re very good at managing processes, but when it comes to people we’re a little less. R: It sounds like it’s also to do with visibility of having people who are in those roles who are then accessible, or people are aware of. D: Absolutely. Image is powerful, role models are powerful. I think that the infrastructure of the way we work as well, because it’s often quite project-driven, and we’re demanded to give a lot of time or even relocate. You see these guys pouring out of low-cost hotels, and that kind of thing, to do their shifts. And working long hours to meet the requirements of a project. So when people start thinking about wanting to progress, they think I’m going to have to give up more of my time, and be absolutely committed to this. The assumption that many employers have is that they can’t get that commitment from women. Oh, they might have children, or do this or that. And so we start to see these things being perpetuated. Women who don’t progress, who aren’t considered gifted, and should be progressing. They’re not considered as a reliable. For many individuals the perception is that if you directorial, or a partner, or if you’re someone who’s quite senior in the business, you give all the hours that God sends. You’re going to assume by looking at that, that women aren’t there because a. they don’t value them, b. any wish to have work/life boundaries will be seen as a lack of commitment. This enables things to stay as they are, or move incredibly slowly. R: Do you believe there are tangible methods, or any commitments that industries could make in terms of addressing this gender inequality or lack of diversity? D: Yeah, I think there are a number of things. I think as an industry one of the things we don’t do particularly well is to train managers and leaders in the industry. We tend to say, “you’re very good at technical”, or “you’re very good at getting the job done”, and then you’re suddenly training people without having had a management training. You are there to deliver a particular set of outcomes. The project plan becomes your bible. That means, of course, anybody who says “well actually this isn’t going to work for me because I need to work three days a week”, or any sort of change, it means

that your managers of project leaders who see anyone requesting any sort of different treatment as a problem. And now my project plan doesn’t work – how are we going to deliver it? So I think as an industry we really need to get our head around the fact that we’re managing people, not processes. [Inaudible]. I did a blogpost a few years ago, and I looked at the jobs board at how many construction jobs were being offered, and how many were being offered with a hint of flexibility. And it was so low, the numbers that said flexibility or equal opportunities. [Inaudible]. Obviously, I’m committed to things like mentoring, and I think it’s because we see tangible outcomes for people going through that process. It allows people to talk about the issue of work and the [inaudible], unlike you’re appraisal where you’re saying “oh I did this in the office, and now next year I think I’m going to want to do that”. It allows you to view the whole person as individuals in terms of where they want to go, and how they want to go into a sector [I think – inaudible]. So if you’re committed to helping organisations to provide other methods of support, when other people went off into a room and did CPD style. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with CPD, but I do think – particularly for underrepresented groups – it’s really important that they have an opportunity to explore the issues as they pertain to them. I think we need much better pathways which aren’t just about bringing people in at a young age and then hoping that they progress up. For a long time in the industry, if you’re looking at trade and craft, [inaudible] you see a 21-year-old going through that route and then getting their skills, knowledge and experience as they go up the ladder. In the professional sector is usually in college and higher education is the route, with the expectation for the most part those individuals will have left school and sixth form [inaudible]. I know that some disciplines, have done this. I think the planners are particularly good at this, where they say “ah, you’ve got a background in law or development”, and actually those are the kinds of skillsets that could be taken in. We’re not always looking for someone at a young age to be taken up. [Inaudible]. R: In my dissertation I’m looking at actual building technologies or methodologies as a way….do you believe there are any technologies that could be utilised to increase female representation? D: I saw this question and I wasn’t sure what it meant. Predominantly looking at actual construction or design programmes. For example, off-site manufacturing and certain conditions could be a means to address inequality because of fixed environment that they create. I think it’s an interesting one because potentially, with things like 3D printing and off-site manufacturing, it starts to suggest a slightly different approach. It might be a fixed space that you’re working in, or not having to travel regularly. It might be a working pattern that’s completely different, it might mean in terms of location. The potential for level three BIM is supposedly that we’re all working at the same model wherever we are – if you’re working at 3am in Singapore or 2pm in Glasgow you’re still able to contribute. So I do think that technology has a role to play, but it is a tool. I think if the culture doesn’t change then we’re still left with the culture that we began with. So in some ways the technology can have the adverse effect, so we all thought we’ve got laptops now, we’ve got our phones and that means we can work anywhere. But it also means that people feel they are working all of the time, and they’re checking emails as soon as they wake up in the morning and on the commute and after work as well. People feel “oh I better respond to that because I have a work laptop or phone”, and aren’t always able or feel comfortable to say “no, that’s it”. So a tool can end up serving a culture, rather than introducing something better. I think you could put people into a factory and still have this “well, we said we’d make 1000 in

6 months and that means we’ve got to work every hour God sends”, and the fact that we’re all in one place together doesn’t change things. It might mean that you’re better able to control or communicate things, and have more flexibility, but the ethos remains the same. [Inaudible]. I think the potential is there. R: I think we could create an environment where there’s equality in some sense, but if everyone is still working the same long hours then that’s not actually conducive to a healthy working environment in general. D: Absolutely. And I think alongside this and in terms of culture it’s also about telling different stories as well. What’s been exciting in the medical field with 3D printing, as an example, then you hear stories about it being used to create artificial limbs for people and animals, and people are going “oh my gosh, that’s really interesting” whether you’re from a medical background or not, it kind of draws you in thinking what might the next thing be. People are empathising not necessarily the technology, but the outcome. I don’t think as an industry we’re very good at that. So when you’re talking about what we do, it seems to be much more about output than it is about outcomes. But I think other industries that use technologies have been much better at saying this has the potential to make your life better, to help you easily create solutions for yourself. There’s something missing, this dialogue with the rest of the world. R: I think it is really interesting because mental health plays such a big part in this, in having a healthy working environment and it can support any person in theory. But, I am worried that the profession will lose some of its most creative designers, or the people who’ve been at the forefront, because it only allows a certain kind of person with a certain capacity, with support who don’t have to do something like making dinner or looking after a child. I think it does worry me. D: Absolutely. It’s not good for anybody. I think the culture has created a situation where many men – more recently these kinds of discussions about toxic masculinity, mental health and things about saying things like “man up” have detrimental effects, and men are speaking up about it. It’s taken a long time, a lot of pain and loss, for it to be the situation where people feel comfortable now to talk about the stigma of mental health. We’ve still got a way to go. I applaud that the government said we need to have mental health first aiders [I think], and that this really needs to be on our agenda. The amount of time we’re spending at work, I think it’s absolutely right that these discussions should be happening. So we don’t want to end up putting a plaster over what’s actually a massive wound. If we’re not looking at the cause, it ends up being psychologically damaging because once people have that sense that “I thought this industry was going to be like this, and I worked in it and it wasn’t”, they become almost anti-ambassadors for that industry which is what is so interesting about speaking to people who’ve been in the industry and left, there’s often that psychological contrast where they say “no, wouldn’t touch it or recommend it. My kids are going to…[inaudible].” Even though it might have been due to a particular project or set of circumstances or instance. R: Thank you so much. I’ve covered the main breadth of what I’m interested in. Do you have any further bits you want to add? D: There was something. So, I think it was Vince Cable who instigated the Women on Board project, and some of the research suggested in order to really make a change on a board it wasn’t enough to have one women, you needed at least 30% to create

a cultural shift. One of the things the industry could do better is to support almost the trailblazers if you like, particularly on the trade and craft side, the individuals who might be the only one on their site, course or project because to be the only one, or the first one, can be incredibly difficult. I think often the organisation might be thinking about it from their perspective thinking “oh my God, now we have this woman”. I can remember the fear in people’s eyes when I turned up on my first day as an electrical apprentice. You know I was nervous, but I could see they weren’t quite sure how this was going to work, is it all going to kick off if somebody says something? Can we joke with her? Really tense. That actually feeds into a sense that it’s going to make things much harder, and if you’re not getting support it depends way too much on persons [? Inaudible]. Not only that but I think in particular cultures what it encourages is a. for women to be selected because they’re similar enough, because they have cultural [something], or to [ape???] behaviour that’s already there. [Inaudible]. I’d never say that quotas are a good idea, but I would say that organisations are usually thinking we’ll start small and grow from there, we’ll start with one or two new people. I’d like to see a bit more ambition. We’re incredibly ambitious as a sector, we go right we’re going to build the tallest building in Europe; the Shard. It’s incredible some of the things we do, and the decisions that we have and the creativity we have. But when it comes to people and change, suddenly we’re opposed. And maybe if we tried one first and see how that goes. I’d like to see that level of ambition and goals – it’s not about quotas, it’s about goals. Trying to change everything off of one individual or trailblazer and how charismatic they are puts a huge pressure on the individual. So, we really need to think about how we can better support these trailblazers. R: In terms of not thinking in terms of quotas which aren’t the most appropriate method, why is that? It’s an interesting one. More often than not when I’m in discussions with women in construction about quotas, the eyes roll up. There’s a real worry from the women already there that they are seen as a special case, or as not being good enough. They feel that that word undermines them, and I totally get it. We all go through the same process. I studied to be an electrician at a four-year apprenticeship. I qualified as an architect after a minimum of seven years. The idea that this person gets a special chance when you’ve already trained in the same place. For many people it feeds into that mythology [?] of discrimination. People are talented, and they want to be seen for their talent. Their knowledge and experience might be different but that doesn’t make them anything less. I think quotas focus much more on goals. Using that kind terminology starts to reframe it, and it isn’t about a kind of tick box exercise, or doing something that has no real value. It’s just about someone being able to say we’re doing a good thing. It comes across as disingenuous. I think that’s why so many people find it difficult. Not everyone though. It’s interesting, when I’m in spaces that aren’t construction conversation about quotas tends to be in support. I’m not sure if it’s because, for many people, the construction sector is on the extreme in terms of the lack of diversity compared to other sectors. So maybe that’s why it’s not seen as such a difficult word or concept. I’m sure I’ve seen research which says if we waited for things to happen naturally we would be waiting 50, 60 or 70 years or something like that. And there was another thing; pay gaps. So again, it’s not enough to get your website and messages right. Put one picture up of one woman on your website. If what you’re then reporting with government requesting voluntary information is that the pay gap is ridiculous. You’re then in a situation where you may well be appearing to undermine your message. I think people are getting far more fed about that. [Inaudible]. It’s not going to be solved overnight. We make take a step back before

we can move forward. However, it’s often the detail, the actual experience, that makes people feel that this is an inclusive space. It’s good for some people, but for a lot of us it’s “meh”, and I need to get out of here. R: Thank you so much, this has been fantastic. Thanks for taking the time.

08/08/2019

Sarah Ernst Interview, 6th August 2019, 32:07 minutes (Conducted by phone) R – Rosa Turner Wood (Interviewer) S – Sarah Ernst, Senior Architect Architype R: I understand the RUSS project in Ladywell was developed through co-design workshops. How did Architype facilitate this process with RUSS and future La-dywell residents? S: When we first got told of the project there wasn’t a resident’s group, and at that point we were working with RUSS members. The members were made up of some people who did want to be-come future residents, but also people who were just supportive of the project. So, in the very first workshop that we ran, we were just working with members. Then in early 2016 RUSS did an application process for a ballot to a get a residents group. We came up with a structure and process which was based on meeting every two weeks, and reflecting on it now, we realise that those sessions were just too close together. But at the time it made sense because we thought we were working towards a planning application much quicker. We started to meet them in the weekends to generate ideas. We had site visits to see projects that had reached completions, and to be aspirational. Then we had sessions in the evenings, and each session focused on one of the areas we had discussed in previous sessions. And in these sessions, we would work as a whole group – which you need - and then split into smaller groups to discuss things in a bit more detail. And we arranged things in preference, to under-stand what people liked. We had sketches of different things to express their ideas, and we tried to make it as visual as possible. R: Was that how you gauged what residents like? Through showing them prece-dents and then there was an opportunity for residents to vote, or have a contribution? S: Yes, all the materials we took with us were really to start a conversation about a particular theme we wanted to get their input on. Then we would get the group to express their preference and use stickers to get people to come and engage. It was a way of voting, but it wasn’t as for-mal, because we were working in smaller groups and then coming together to get a sense of the whole group. So, we had those sessions quite close together, and then it would be 6 to 9 months later that we met the group again. We were looking more at layouts. And that gap between those sessions was mainly to do with funding, which was a bit stop/start. We couldn’t work on the project con-sistently, and also it is quite challenging to get planning approval – we had to jump through quite a lot of hoops with planners, which meant be consistently working on it. And also, meeting the residents on a regular basis makes it quite a complex project. We only had a budget for meeting them a certain number of times, which is why on reflection we would have spread those out, if we had known everything was going to take much longer. R: So, what was the value in having smaller group sessions? Was there a reason you chose to engage with residents in that way, and then come back as a whole?

S: The resident’s group is really diverse. Some of them are members of RUSS and completely committed to the project and was is happening, and other people were coming into the project as an opportunity to get an affordable home. So, people had quite different agendas, they didn’t know each other, and so in a large group setting, some people wouldn’t really contribute any-thing, and others would dominate. Splitting into smaller groups was really helpful, to try and hear the perspectives of the some of the quieter people in the group. We also sometimes split according to unit size, so people in one-beds together, or people in two-beds together, and that helped as people had something in common in terms of the amount of space they were going to get. I’d say they’ve got to know each other much more now, and I’d say there is a tight knit group. But then there are still people who don’t come to sessions, so it’s a real mix. Partly that is to do with childcare, partly it is to do with people not being available for when the sessions are on. We are used to getting 60% at-tendance, 60 to 70% is good. In the sessions, both the weekend and the evening sessions, we try to provide a kid’s area. We were very lucky because there is so much interest in the project, we had quite a lot of people who wanted to volunteer in some way. We had a lot of architecture students who were helping us out on the co-design sessions. We had some people who were just sitting at each table just mak-ing notes, writing bits on post-it notes so that everyone could see what was recorded. But we also had someone who was just running activities for people’s kid, so people felt they could bring their kids to the session and didn’t have to worry about childcare. R: So presumably that is really important in making sure that you get those dif-ferent voices, who wouldn’t be able to commit unless that support was provided? S: Yes, definitely, because otherwise we had couples alternate. So, one couple one session, and the other one would come to the next session. But this meant generally both partners could come with their kids. So, I think that was a positive thing to do. R: I understand it has been proposed that residents can contribute to some of the work on the scheme. I was wondering how Architype are accommodating this in their proposal, and what residents might be involved in? S: It’s a difficult one. The amount that residents want to do, and the capability or capacity they have has evolved over the past few years, partly to do with people’s circumstances changing, and the project taking longer. Now people can commit more, or they can’t commit much. RUSS has regularly audited what the residents are interested in doing, and that filters back to us. From the beginning there was always an understanding that foundations and groundwork wouldn’t be something that would make sense for self-builders to do, but anything upwards from that would be something self-builders could do. I think, in reality, because finance is a really big factor, there has had to be a balance between what would be nice for self-builders to do, and what is financially most viable. So, the frame is looking much more likely to be done by a contrac-tor. That’s a timber frame, so it’s not beyond the skills that a self-builder could develop, but the amount of time needed to develop would mean construction would be much slower. Because RUSS has a loan, to cover all construction, it just means it takes longer and has an impact on the loan, so it’s actually more expensive. Although it seems like better for self-builders

to do the max-imum, it would take a lot longer. So, it’s a combination of that, and also there would still need to be a timber frame sub-contractor who was managing that process, even if all the labour was self-build. It’s very difficult to get sub-contractors who engage with the idea of self-build, and a lot of that is to do with insurance risks, in the way they work. So, it seems like with the large packages, like the timber frame, it seems much more likely that the majority will be done by a sub-contractor, but with the residents who are really interested and have the time to be involved early on in the process, they could become apprentices for that process. It’s more likely to be a small number of self-builders working with a main sub-contractor and they would be working as apprentices in that role. Whereas, as the construction goes further, the self-builders could work a bit more independently. They would still have supervision, but they could be doing the majority of the package. But one of the things that is quite unique, is the residents can’t just work on their own homes, because it is three or more storeys. Some people are in one-bedroom flats, so. If they were only going to work on their own flat, they would be waiting quite a long time. But the idea is that the residents that want to self-build work in teams to help the contractors on packages. Which could be hanging doors across the whole scheme or putting up partitions across the whole scheme. So, only when it gets to final finishes are they just working on their own home. It is quite a complicated thing to work out. There is an assumption that the saving that the residents generate by doing selfbuild is a saving in the overall project cost plan. But some residents can only work on the weekends, and that would be difficult to make a lot of progress if they were only working at that time. And the site is managed by a paid contractor, who is ultimately taking responsibility, that contractor is not going to want to be there all the time. And also, the planning submission limits the time they can work. There are lots of different factors that happen and we need to juggle, and there will be work that is happening in the evenings, but the whole project can’t be done like that, it has to be a bal-ance. Some of the residents are reducing their hours work, so they might be able to commit a day a week, which will make a big difference. But the residents are committing on an individual basis, whereas on some projects residents have had to do 20 hours a week, which is a common commitment, whereas this is slightly different. Some residents can commit and be financially re-warded for it. R: So, it works that they’ll (residents who have worked) pay less overall? S: Yes. The self-build schemes that happened in the 80s and 90s were based off a timber frame approach had equity. So the more hours you put in, the more equity you were generating, and that will be the case with this project. It is capped at a certain point, so there is a maximum the residents (can have deducted) from their homes. And there are some people who from the be-ginning said they can’t self-build. We have some elderly residents, or have jobs that won’t allow them to do this. So either the other residents will cover that persons unit or a contractor will. R: In terms of the residents working, I’ve read there were going to be potential opportunities for training in construction onsite. I don’t know if that is still some-thing that is happening with people outside of the resident’s group? S: In terms of the resident’s group, there is definitely training before they get to site. They have to do various trainings. In terms of people who aren’t part of the resident’s group, there is a chance friends and family might get involved, but similarly they would need basic levels of training.

R: With a focus on women working in self-build, do you have any notion of how many women might be participating in the construction? S: It’s interesting, because when you first got in touch I was trying to think if we had thought about this in the project. When we met the residents group, it felt like it was mix of people saying they wanted to be involved, or didn’t want to be involved. Some women saying they really wanted to be involved, and some men saying they didn’t want to be involved. Where we have got cou-ples that have children I got the impression that they both generally wanted to be involved in some way, and they would split meetings between them. But maybe some households would do it slightly differently and split in more traditional ways. Like the woman will look after the kids while the man is (more on site). But it didn’t come across like that. Because of the whole range of dif-ferent elements, some people are really interested in plumbing, while some are quite interested in electrics, and not all things are very demanding. One of the women had organised a self-build community hub on site, had been led by Megan (a resident). She is also an architect, we’ve got a few architects who are RUSSS members, and she (Megan), has really driven that side of the pro-ject. So, I think it’s a really mix. I don’t think we picked up on whether there was a split. R: With the training, there are various different avenues that residents could pursue within that training? There’s not a standardised training, different people might have different roles on site? S: I have to say; we haven’t been so involved with that side of the project. Because the pro-gramme is so unusual. When we first started the project we were the architectural element, and Jon Broome Architects were doing the group facilitation and the (…) advice. Although their role has changed slightly, with Jon Broome working on more options, and training and self-build side of it. So, we don’t get involved in all of those discussions. I know they have been looking a lot at training, and I think they’ve been timetabling about exactly when things can start. The main con-struction starts on site in October, but they’ll be a chunk of time for foundations, and then the next thing will be the frame going up. They know they need to start training early and then train-ing according to what different packages are happening. So I think there is a programme for that, but we haven’t been involved in that. But in terms of deisgning it, we have been thinking about self-build, the whole time. We’ve challenged people when they’ve said, ‘Oh we can’t do packag-es for self-build’. The likelihood is (residents) are going to be very diligent, because it is their own homes. They want the project to be a success. The lessons learnt from Walter Segal and the early self-build projects was that if someone can saw in a straight line and use a drill, then they can actually do a lot. There is an assumption that most of the residents can learn from scratch with the right train-ing. R: This might be quite a big question, so if you don’t have any thoughts on it that is absolutely fine. Do you believe the self-build model has any advantages in creating more gender equality in construction? With the ability to be trained from a base of no knowledge without assumptions (on ability)? S: It feels like it should have the potential for more gender equality, because if everybody was going into it with (no knowledge), then no one has a particular advantage. There are always go-ing to be some people who are going to want to

participate, but then I guess once you’ve got to the point of wanting to be involved in a self-build project you probably do want to construct (…) Maybe just going through that first stage of wanting to be involved in a self-build project you probably do want to get involved. R: So, you’re already drawing in the people who are interested in that. S: Yeah. And that was made clear to people when they first applied. It wasn’t that you can’t be a resident, but there was that choice about your involvement in the project. I think the majority of residents were aware of that when they signed up and were quite keen on that. R: I guess the residents that can’t (construct) shouldn’t be deprived of that. Like you were saying with the elderly residents, they want to be part of that, and don’t have the capacity to. S: Yes, and RUSS wanted a mix of people. Some older people downsizing, and they wanted it to be a diverse group. R: Well fantastic, that has covered all my questions. Thanks so much for speaking with me, I really appreciate it.

06/08/2019

Jenny Pickerill Interview, 17th September 2019, 35:06 minutes (Conducted in person) R – Rosa Turner Wood (Interviewer) J – Jenny Pickerill (Professor in Environmental Geography, Head of Geography Department University of Sheffield) R: So, currently looking at UK building numbers, and the fact that they are completely stagnating at the moment, and self-build homes represent about 10-15% of those in the UK - looking forward, at the environmental climate, do you believe there is a greater case for greater utilisation of self-builds and eco-communities? J: Absolutely! I mean the whole reason why our building industry is stagnating is around the economy rather than the need, so the need for housing isn’t stagnating. There is a need to actually decouple how we understand what our houses do, what we need them to do, who actually wants to live in them, from the business model that has dominated at the moment. So, we know there is increasing housing needs, we know those housing needs are changing. So more and more single people, people of different configurations. So, you’ve got those extremes of single people, you’ve also got multi-families increasingly, or new families with a whole array of different children and generations in those houses. And so that model that the construction industry has of three or four bed homes really isn’t fit for purpose. It’s not fit for purpose for need, and it’s certainly not fit for purpose for the environment or climate change. I think while it’s clear in this country we are not going to have a rapid self-build movement emerge, and also everyone isn’t going to live in eco-communities, I think the excitement that happens around eco self-build and eco-communities signals that there is a desire from people to have different options, and for those options to allow them to participate in making those choices. It’s not all about being off the shelf, or you can buy yourself into an eco-community. It is actually, if you were allowed to dream, how would you like to live? That ranges from everyone who wants a co-housing experience, often much younger people, they still want their individual space, but they’re quite happy with the social space. Maybe they want to extend the good things about university living for a bit longer, into our 20s and 30s, to older generations, saying I don’t want to live on my own in a cold dark house I can’t afford to heat and light anymore – but I don’t want to give up other things that are really important to me like a garden, for example. To me, I feel like our housing is too limited in what it offers, and self-build and ecocommunities at the very least what they’re doing is opening up questions and possibilities. In some places, and under some different circumstances, they’re actually being put into practice. And those people that get to live in them tend to love them. So, there is not a very high turnover once people are in those places, and I think that’s really telling to me, that these things work. Of course, not for everyone – but, it’s not something that is failing. It’s just something that there isn’t enough of yet. And in terms of the environment, understanding a bit more about how our houses are built, and where our resources are coming from, and how we can collect and generate and store those, will be invaluable in years to come. At the moment if there is a power cut, there is a mass panic in Britain – we haven’t got a clue. Understanding that actually we need some systems in place for power cuts, other countries live with them all the time, why aren’t we a bit more ready for that? If it really matters to you, why haven’t

you got your own solar panel? It’s not even things that people are discussing, that we could be. I think the main stream housing construction industry has always been risk averse, and conservative, because they don’t have a high profit margin. They might make a lot of money, but it is only through mass housing. So they don’t want to mess with that, and have empty housing. But actually, I’m not sure they’re delivering what we need. R: I think it is really interesting reading up more recently, in relation to what percentage of Sweden and Germany, and Belgium and France and what they’re doing with the self-build model. And then the fact that the UK isn’t utilising that. J: I think that’s what I found in my research. Which is that people say, ‘well Britain can’t change’. We’ve got a very particular housing market, yet countries next to us have a completely different one. Much higher rates of renting, but secured tenancies, and much higher rates of self-build. None of this says we have to live like this. I understand how we have got to this point, which is an obsession with home ownership. And, I understand that we are struggling with the power that landlords have. And we are policy wise trying to push back on that, but we could very easily in the long run switch to better models, and there’s examples next door. It’s not that it’s not there, in practice it is. R: I’m from South London and live really near the Walter Segal Honor Oak Park development. So I’ve been to a couple of open houses, and (am interested in) the fact that no one leaves once they’re there. And I’ve been talking to Architype who are doing the Ladywell project, and I think that’s just so fascinating, in that it is led by one of the sons of a couple who were in the first development. J: I think that’s what happens! I didn’t realise until I built an eco-house with my mum that a house could make you happy. But actually, the light, the layout, the fact that it’s not haemorrhaging your bank account to heat it, actually can change your mental state. And to me I didn’t realise that, because you’re brought up to see houses as investments, and we can do a bit of DIY but really it is just about location. It takes living in a completely different house to release how wrong that is. R: Through your research, and I know we’ve touched upon this, what are the obstacles preventing people from building eco-homes and (engaging) in self-build? J: There are lots of obstacles, especially in Britain, so other countries do have these obstacles. The main obstacle is almost a lack of practice. The fact that we do not selfbuild houses, means that to self-build a house is seen as unusual. And you don’t see many other examples, and most of your friends and parents haven’t done it, therefore it seems really risky. Whereas in other countries, where they have 40% self-build, it is seen as really normal. And then when you say self-build, people think you’re literally talking about putting the bricks on yourself. I know in Britain there has been some groups trying to use the term custom build, to try to overcome that, which is about not doing it all yourself necessarily. I think that biggest issue is that historically we haven’t done it, or we are perceived to have not done it. We did – but it’s a long time ago. And then you add to that the perception that it costs more, it’s harder to get a mortgage. Again, because it’s unusual only some places will give you a mortgage for it. Planning is really variable,

and it very much depends on where you are in the country to whether you’re going to get planning to self-build. The land costs are massively problematic in this country, because we don’t cap the cost of land that’s development. So, it ends up looking like a very risky, expensive and long process compared to other countries. You add all that up and can see why people wouldn’t do it. To build a house in this country, from start to finish, if you’re going to buy the land and then go through planning and build it, it’s like a three-year process, if things go well! That’s not very feasible for a lot of people. Where do you live in the meantime? And how do you find that? So, to me it is largely practical questions that are barriers to us. You could resolve some of them, but you’ve actually got to resolve the whole lot to shift it. I don’t think big companies actively block self-build, but I think the power they have and the way they are able to landbank, and the way they’re able to navigate planning (just because they know how to do it) limits the possibilities. So even if you see a nice field on the edge of a village, and think that will be good, you will invariably find that someone else owns it and is land banking it until they can develop it. So, you’re never going to get it. It sounds a little bit pessimistic, which is why I work with a lot of groups on the margins of legality. Who go ‘well I’m not going to try and navigate all of that ourselves, I’m going to try and work around the system – if we work round the system then we can do it’. I think the more groups that do that, and illustrate it’s possible, then others think that’s a risk worth taking. R: So, in your work exploring eco-building, I was reading bits where you discussed female participants as challenging the idea that they needed ‘strong bodies’ to actually partake in construction. Do you believe assumptions made about women’s capabilities is denying certain women possibilities to participate? Is that assumption preventing people? J: Definitely! I saw it regularly in my work and was surprised. Not that we don’t have more female bricklayers, because we already have lots of stereotypes against that. So, I already knew from existing literature that we don’t have many women in mainstream housing construction. What surprised me was that I went to work with self-build and eco-communities that are predominantly left wing, talk a lot about gender equality, talk about non-standard families, and yet it was the men who were building. It wasn’t material based, it wasn’t that the houses were being built in a way that women couldn’t have done them, there were presumptions that women couldn’t have done them, and that is the problem. There are of courses physical differences between men and women, although even then there is an overlap, and I think that’s missed as well. There are some really strong women who are going to be much stronger than men, and that’s often missed in those things. To me, it was the presumption still that women not just couldn’t specifically do the strength jobs, but that it wasn’t women’s place to build and design structures. That women could do the gardening, the childcare, and the interior design. And the fact that that’s so entrenched, in what I thought would be left-wing progressive places was really depressing. But once you start seeing it, you see it everywhere within those spaces. That’s why I think some of the most inspiring places are where they’ve said they’re going to do women only. They have to happen, because until women don’t have to look over their shoulder all the time, that some bloke is going to come over and come and tell them how to redo something, and mansplain it, and it just becomes more accepted that women can absolutely build, then I think they should have their

own space to do that. R: I saw a model where Women’s Workshop Self Build in Northumberland, where they were using that as a way to get women into the sector as well. Women working in women-only environments to construct a self-build, as a means to build confidence – because they were capable, but it was the confidence they didn’t have. J: Exactly. I think that’s the tension. There is no way, as a novice, you are going to walk up and start building an eco-house and aren’t going to make mistakes. You are going to have to learn through doing – as a man would too. But because we are trained by society to believe that a man is naturally better at technical things, then it is actually very easy for women to lose their confidence. And even I, when I got pushed off banging something into the ground, because maybe I should fold cardboard. I didn’t object initially, because I’m so cultured into that ‘oh, so I probably can’t do this properly’. What?! Well I’d only just started, so no I’m not going to pick up a skill if I’ve never done it before, and that’s one of the things that’s really important. I think we are missing not just a labour pool, but huge creativity. And a real possibility of designing a better house, with different emphasis, and thinking all that skill and knowledge, why leave out half the population? It doesn’t make any sense. And there is also a fear, by men, that if women can do that as well, then what can they do? So, we’ve also been brought up in this country that if women start excelling at things, that means men have less to prove themselves. It’s just inaccurate – why can’t we all be good at lots of things? R: I’ve read that when women do thrive in those environments, they’re almost assimilating to male stereotypes to fit into that sector. Rather than valuing that there may be some differences between women and men – but not many – but they can both thrive in these environments. J: Exactly, and again it forces women to be a certain way, maybe hide the fact that they are struggling with some of the strength issues, not feeling able to admit that. It ignores the fact that we all bring different things whatever our gender. We are all going to have different skills and capabilities, and creativity to look at something. Now, if we think that we have to pretend to be the same as men, then we probably don’t ask as many questions because we don’t want to appear stupid, we don’t say certain things because we are not sure if that fits, and then what actually is the point in being a woman in that space? Because you’ve just turned yourself into a man, but only given half yourself because you think you can’t show the rest. Building a house, if you self-build a house, is exhausting. It is emotionally and physically draining. You will cry if you’re prone to crying, and to me it is really important that you can. It is not an easy task – building a house is really hard work. And you need to be free to be your whole self in that, and that’s one of the things that really struck me. It felt a lot like, I don’t want to show emotion, I don’t want to show that I’m so tired I want to cry, and that’s just depressing really. It also presumes that emotions are feminine, and that men can’t have emotions. It creates a problem for all genders. It’s not it’s a problem for women, it’s a problem for all of us. R: There was a statistic I read, they didn’t actually say where the source was from, but it was a ridiculously high number of people with mental health (issues) in the construction sector. By diversifying, not just women but greater attempts to diversify the sector, it would have a knock-on effect. It would create environments where there

was more retention and more support. Emotion-side, there is such a discrepancy between support for women with mental health, and men not seeking that support. J: Exactly, and why would we want a society like that? We know that we have certain physical differences in how our bodies are made, we have differences internally, but at the end of the day we are all going to suffer with mental health issues, we are all going to get exhausted, we are all going to injure ourselves doing these types of jobs, and that has consequences, and we all need to be able to talk about it. R: I know there is an assumption made women’s capabilities onsite, but do you believe that self-build has been pushed in a way to (accommodate) men onsite? I’ve read even just about appropriate clothing; it’s designed with men in mind. J: Oh definitely! You know the new book, I can’t remember what it is called, but the new book that says safety equipment is made for men. As soon as you start looking at it, you go ‘oh, yes of course it is!’ You go in, and you look for safety gear, and equipment and it is all male. Absolutely all male. That has real consequences on who feels they can do that work. But also, crucially, on who says they want to do something else. In one of the eco-communities I worked in the two men were building the house. One of the men was a trained carpenter, the other hadn’t had experience. He spent four years working on this house (the non-trained person) until he realised, he didn’t even like it. And he realised this when the two women in this (it was a very small eco-community) they both got pregnant at the same time, and they’d been doing the gardening. So the untrained, the non-carpenter, said I’ll do some gardening, realised he loved gardening and hated building, but it took four years and the accident of pregnancy at the same time, for him to have the space to acknowledge in himself, that he was spending his life doing something he didn’t want to do. And I think that is as important as women being given the right space and opportunity and support for that. So, I think the whole thing is structured to fit men, and that damages them as much as anything else. They think ‘oh well I should be able to self-build my family a house and everything is set up for that’. To say no to that is difficult to do. The size of drills and things. The thing is, I’ve interviewed some people about it, but because I have man-sized hands it’s never been a problem for me. But I’ve also struggled the other way, in that I’m not woman enough, female enough to fit what women should and shouldn’t do. I think just opening that up, going we are all different here, but we are also going to need difference to do that. The fact that I can use men’s tools is an advantage, but it also hides the problem. And maybe you end up with those stronger and larger women do the building because we can fit into the way in which the equipment has been shaped. R: I guess largely when I’ve looked at this (diversifying the sector) it has been within my own sector (architecture), and overlapped with construction, and women not being valued on site. There are assumptions about what women’s roles are, and it is only just something I am getting in to, because I haven’t had that much site experience as I’m still in training. I am pre-empting how I am going to feel. But the idea of actually working on site, would bring about some many other anxieties. J: I think it does. What I found really interesting as that just me as a researcher, albeit

I had built an eco-house, I hadn’t done everything on it, it was a custom-build, even that, as a researcher on site, people would try not to give me technical information. I’d be like ‘I really want to know. What is that material there? And what are the foundations made out of?’ and they would try and go like ‘do you really need that?’ ‘Err, yeah, I’ve just asked you!’ Why wouldn’t I want that level of technical information? If I was a man and asked you that question, what would you have said to me? I think even those subtleties, sometimes you don’t realise until you’ve walked off site, and realise I didn’t really get the answer to that question. Oh, it was because I was a woman asking it. You know, and that in itself I think is prevalent throughout. In terms of some of the groups where men and women were working together, they didn’t share information in the way that actually enabled women to fully learn and understand and get involved. Well, ‘I’ll tell you to do this bit’, rather than ‘why don’t we sit down and have a whole morning meeting about materials and structure and how we are going to do this?’ R: So, it was based on the assumption that we will feed you a little bit of information, so you can do that immediate task. J: Exactly, you’re an assistant. So, you might be allowed on, you might be doing things, but you’re still an assistant. Whether subconsciously or not, for some of these men it was subconscious, when I asked them, they were hands (over face) and horror, ‘oh I see what I’ve been doing’. Actually, they didn’t think a woman came with the right experience and had the technical mind to do it. Others had understood that in themselves and overcome it. So, when a man actually bothered to teach me how to saw properly, it was a revelation as to why I’d always sawed crooked. No one had ever bothered to teach me. They had seen me saw crooked, as said ‘well you can’t saw’. I’d spent like forty years sawing crooked. He actually taught me how to do it, and patiently, and let me practice. I was like ‘wow, thank you!’ R: I guess so much comes back to gaining that level of experience. I think that is a real failure in the construction sector in general, that women aren’t even given the first opportunities to gain experience, to then move on. J: Exactly. You know that thing as an architect, as a woman, that you’ll probably have to work harder, and impress, and we know that, and have to do it in a lot of professional roles still. We can plan for that in some roles like architecture, we can go in prepped. In building, you can only get that through practicing. And you cannot practice building your own home at night very easily. So, there is a need to create more space, and accept that most of us haven’t been brought up being allowed to go in a workshop and try things out. I wasn’t even allowed to do wood work at school, I got told to do cookery lessons, and I’m not that old. That’s the education. Not only are we trying to impress and work harder, I don’t know where we get to practice. R: It’s about putting education in place as well. J: It really is. For some of that, it may need to be gender specific, or gender-neutral. Of course, gender debates are shifting rapidly at the moment. It’s not just about having a safe space, it’s about having a space where gender doesn’t matter. And for any gender comments to be like (dismissed) ‘no, that’s not how we talk, or that’s not

what we say’. Certainly, when I’ve interviewed a range of female builders, or female architects, they all said they had had to work harder. They had all had to overcome stigma. They had all had to prove themselves much more than men. R: It seems that it’s not presented even as an option, even at a school level. I remember reading this Guardian article called, ‘why bob the builder is dangerous’. I don’t ever remember having seen an example of where women were on site, or in the media. If you don’t do that from a young age (have media representation), then architecture is the closest (profession) you have to something like that. J: That to me mirrors a very slow progress of women’s roles in Britain. Which is great on one level, that we are slowly going across the professions, and we are slowly getting into politics, but we have always had to come in from what is perceived to be the easy route. You don’t leave school at sixteen and become a female bricklayer. That’s not viewed as an option. Whereas, although I’ve ended up as an academic, I’m doing physical stuff. Who knows what I could have done. R: It’s interesting, I don’t know if you heard the Radio 4 Women’s Hour, there was one called ‘Women In Construction’? It was on a couple of weeks ago, and it was fantastic. A lot of women who were talking, who had gone into construction, it was later in life. It was at a point where they felt they weren’t happy in their job, and they moved, but they had the confidence. A lot of them it was changing their career, and that’s the way women are able to tolerate abuse (while working) or perceived abuse. J: That’s why it’s easy for me to say now, in my forties, that this is outrageous. But me at sixteen, I would have gone like ‘why would I want to go in that space? That’s not for me. I’m going to stick out, I’m not going to be right, I’m not going to have the banter, or the equipment. I don’t have the cultural capital to do that. R: At the same time, it is so valuable to bring these different things into the profession. Women to have that experience. J: Of course, it is! What makes a good architect really? You have to understand so much. You have to understand engineering, you have to understand materials, you have to understand how sites work. Actually, that requires you to have access to spaces that are currently really quite male. R: Through your own experience and engagement with self-build, and given the underrepresentation of women in the sector, do you believe the self-build model could be utilised as a method to increase female participation? Or are there other things at play that we need to deal with? J: It feels a slightly long way off, for self-build to be the way in which women come into building and the industry. It feels like a hard-starting point to be fair. I can see more routes in through apprenticeships, that deliberately encourage the training of building skills to certain diverse groups, gender and beyond. I can see the need for education and encouraging more women to go into engineering and architecture, and those sorts of things. I think I was surprised, so I built my house eleven years ago, and quite confident thirty plus academic. I was surprised about the number of gender comments, being told you know ‘if you strip out all the eco stuff love, this house would be easy to build’.

Being awarded the prize place in a competition for difficult self-builds, we didn’t enter, I don’t know how they found us. They rang up and said ‘well, yeah we like to give (awards) for difficult self-builds, and you and your mum – we thought we would give you third place’. (I said) ‘I really don’t understand, what was difficult? Because we are quite well off, white middle-class people. We had all the social capital, and financial capital, so what was difficult?’ ‘Well you were women’. To encounter that, as someone who is actually very privileged, felt to me that if I was probably less privileged, I probably wouldn’t have managed it. I’m not as hopeful. I think eco-communities are a way of doing it together much better, if you’re doing it collectively. Even then, you probably need some people who are able to navigate that. Rather than a group of women who I think would get patronised, and then maybe a bit demoralised. Especially when you hit problems, which you will. R: It seems we need an overhaul of the profession. J: Yeah, there needs to be multiple different routes in, I don’t think just self-build will enable them (women). Otherwise, we would have a much bigger self-build industry. R: Hopefully we will in general! Well brilliant, thank you so much for taking the time.

Hannah Arkell Interview, 15th September 2019 (Conducted by email) R – Rosa Turner Wood (Interviewer) H – Hannah Arkell, Part II Architectural Assistant R: Could you provide a brief overview of your CITA research? (What technology did you utilise, what was the objectives of your research, etc) H: My Thesis project ‘Plexus’ explored the numerous opportunities where natural fibre can be a competitive material in terms of sustainability and architectural aesthetics in fibrous architecture compared to synthetic fibres. The vast range of natural fibres allows for a multi-material graded system that can be treated with colour dye to allow for a more diverse and expressive design outcome. The investigation objective was to create a material efficient, light weight and aesthetically intricate architecture, applying colour and material hierarchy to emphasise the geometric logic. MATERIAL INVESTIGATION: The investigation started at the micro scale of the single fibre. Seven fibres were evaluated: flax, jute, hemp, cotton, wool, silk and paper (cellulose fibre). Repetitive geometries were materialised to be comparative, evaluating each material across five criteria: aesthetic, ability to be impregnated with polymer matrix to form a composite material system, structural performance, ease of winding and cost. This allowed the classification across three groups: structural use, intermediate infill and aesthetic screen. Beyond the application use of the fibre, this investigation explored the expressive qualities of colour and treatment process’. Unlike synthetic fibres, natural fibres can be treated with different dyes to give varying colourful expression. Colour programming allows for more freedom in expression as it does not necessarily have to change at the node of the framework. This was explored in both 2d and 3d. Simple layering of colours, created the effect of a gradient adding depth and exaggeration to the winding geometries. ROBOTIC FABRICATION: ‘Plexus’ takes advantage of existing research into Core-less Robotic Filament winding (Prado, Dörstelmann, Schwinn, Menges and Knippers 2014) with the aim to expand new geometric articulation and explore different material qualities of a multi-graded natural fibre system. Four units were fabricated for the investigation. The fabrication framework is interchangeable and modular, allowing for multiple output geometries from a minimal set of framework elements. The design can be further customised through material hierarchy and colour programming. Each unit was created by several unique winding patterns that were distinguished by their colour, fibre material and the connection topology. The structural stability of each unit was ensured by performative carbon and flax rovings creating a doubly curved

surface of the main body as well as the reinforcement of the open edges. Once a stable structure was created, the coloured wool and cotton rovings were used to give each unit its distinctive aesthetic decoration. R: From your experience, do you believe the use of robotics offers any advantages over other construction methods? H: Advancement in technology, specifically robotic filament winding has allowed new opportunities for fibre composites within architecture. These technologies have reduced the cost of fabrication due to reducing fabrication time and material waste, enabled a direct linkage between digital design information and materialisation and allows for design freedom and bespoke geometries. Robotic fabrication allows for precision with complex geometries that cannot be achieved by hand. However, it is often a misconception that ‘robots’ are so much more capable than the human hand: The ‘robot’ is only as ‘smart’ or ‘capable’ as its programmer. It is a timely process to automate a fabrication method, requiring an in-depth knowledge of the fabrication method and a computational capability. R: Do you believe robotics will be more broadly utilised in the architecture and construction sector in the future? If so, in what way? H: Yes, within architecture, particularly by the architect. As production machines no longer remain dependent on a clear set of instructions cast in determinate control code, they are increasingly capable of sensing, searching, processing and interacting with each other and the material world in real time, opening up the possibility of truly explorative processes of computation construction that merge design and making. Architecture is shaped by the availability of material technologies and construction techniques. More and more, we are seeing architects and designers making their own tools to fabricate with. I think the traditional design stages, will need to change, where the fabricator and designer will work together initially enabling design for fabrication. R: From your experience of digital practices, do you believe the working environments/ cultures/technologies could be conducive to increasing female representation in the construction sector? If so, why? H: Potentially - I think the forums and open source ethos behind computational knowledge is equally inclusive to males and females. Robotic Fabrication Methods are not hands on/labour intensive and therefore the stereotypical view that a man would be more able is removed. I think digital practices will encourage a more collaborative construction sector.

Gabriella Rossi, 16th September 2019 (Conducted by email) R – Rosa Turner Wood (Interviewer) G – Gabriella Rossi, Arkitekt MAA, MA, BSc. Research and Teaching Assistant CITA | Center for IT and Architecture Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture R: What lead you to be interested in robotics and automation in your academic studies and professional work? G: I am by nature quite a curious nerd, always following the latest tech trends, and wanting to learn a bit about everything. I was always torn apart between architecture and mechatronics engineering as a career, but I ended up choosing architecture because I did not wish to compromise the creative aspect of my education and work, however I always felt the need to go more into depth into technical aspects of things. This is why I am attracted to computational design and robotics, it provides me a path to innovate and develop technology, not for its own sake, but for the sake of applying it to the larger scope of architecture and construction. This idea of “applied transdisciplinary knowledge” is something I am very keen on, because I think that it is to key to relevant progress; we have a lot of tools at our disposition, but often we lack ways of using them in a relevant way. Being the person that can bridge architectural design thinking (the goal), computational workflow coding (the method), and robot programming (the tool) puts me in a happy place. R: Prior to your enrollment in CITA studio, were you offered any opportunities to try using robotics? (E.g, any specific classes at school, during your undergraduate degree, or any extra-curricular activities?) G: I was introduced to computational design (basically coding for architecture) in my second year of bachelor studies during a design studio, taught by a visiting professor from Pratt University. I was attracted to the course due to the forward thinking topic (sustainable housing) and I was interested in a diverse learning experience and gaining insights from a professor that came from another university. During the course we learned to master software that is not usually taught in Italian schools (Rhinoceros and its algorithmic programing plugin Grasshopper). Later that year, I chose another Building Technology Studio that also pushed me to continue using that software. I ended up being part of the research group that taught the studio, and was introduced to 3d printers (technically they are classified as robots) which I learned how to use, and utilized intensively for my bachelor thesis. However, I had never interfaced with an industrial robot arm before being at CITA. R: From your experience, do you believe the use of robotics offers any advantages over other construction methods? G: I am a firm believer that robotics offer so much for architecture and construction. Their precision and reprogrammability are traits that are unique to them, and that are reflected onto the artefacts that they produce; One can clearly distinguish between a robotically fabricated architectural component, and a standard industrial catalogue component. They allow us to make things that were previously impossible (or very expensive) and as architects we are increasingly developing tools integrated within

the design software we use to be able to make advantage of this. Things like facades with thousands of unique pieces, or being able to autonomously build in remote sites or extreme weather conditions, are all things that we can do with robots. People usually complain about robots “stealing human jobs” but I personally see them as auxiliary to humans, and that we should make the most out of the anthological difference between humans and robots and let each do what they are best at. On a higher level of thinking, I believe that they allow us to explore new methods of construction, new ways of making things that are very different to the industrial way we are used to. Conceptually they allow for emerging material tectonics and aesthetic expression, pragmatically, they offer possibilities of bespoke differentiation, which might be the door to a more sustainable construction industry. I am obviously not the only one with this opinion, companies like Odico, Xtree or AIbuild are making usage of robotics, as well as research centers such as Gramazio & Kohler, ICD Stuttgart and CITA. I just came back from the annual eCAADe conference titled “Architecture in the age of the 4th industrial revolution” which had 3 sessions dedicated to robotics in architecture. RobArch, Acadia and Fabricate also present the latest research work in this topic. R: Do you believe robotics will be more broadly utilised in the architecture and construction sector in the future? If so, in what way? G: Well I do hope so, but I am not so sure when, or to what extent. I think the transition is difficult since it disrupts the main assumption of the construction industry; reliance on human labour, that is not extremely skilled. We design a building through drawings, we sell it through renders, we communicate to other project partners using drawings, the building code dictates the standards for those drawings, we chose catalogue components based on drawings, and things are assembled on site using blueprints. Yet robots do not need drawings, code suffices them, yet us humans cannot read thousands of lines of code. Shifting to robot as construction workers requires a shift in the skillset of the architects at work, and a complete revamping of the educational system, and would completely topple contractor’s business model. There is also the big debate on what type of robots will be used in construction. Offsite robots for pre-fabrication? On site robotics? Is it drones? Is it mini-mobile robots that are able to climb façades? iIs it versatile industrial robot arms that are sturdy yet not very movable? Is it task specific robots? Are they directly programmed, or are they sensing their requirement? How smart should they be? etc… I don’t know, academics are trying to test different things, but the industry is just to resistant to innovation because it involves a large financial risk for them, and the only thing that would make them move faster is arguing for larger profits and a more efficient process, but that is always a long and endless vicious circle of debate. R: From your experience of digital practices, do you believe the working environments/ cultures/technologies could be conducive to increasing female representation in the construction sector? If so, why? G: From my experience, I think female presence in digital practice is very limited. In my year at CITAstudio we were 2 girls in a class of 12 guys. At Odico I am the only female in a technical role, versus 15 males, they had to order working gear specifically for me. If you look at digital practice in academia, female authors are way fewer than men (see this paper http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/paper/acadia18_30). If you look at digital practice groups in large architectural firms, females are also

underrepresented (See ZH Code at Zaha Hadid Architects, or BIG ideas at Bjarke Ignels Group. Ironically during my bachelor education our class was balanced, almost 50/50 if not girls slightly edging guys. However few specialize into computational design and digital fabrication and it can only reinforce the popular assumption that “girls can’t code” and “girls can’t hold a hammer”. I find it a pity, but it is also the same with engineering majors, there is always more males than females, I think it’s just rooted into society than man and woman are not equal, and it drives me crazy that we are in 2019 and the only way to prevent this is admission diversity quotas, which I consider to be a form of “inverse” discrimination. The only way is for more girls to believe that this is what they should do if they like it. R: Looking to the future, do you believe we should be encouraging more people into working with digital practices? If so, would you have any recommendations on how the education system/profession could accomplish this? G: Definitely. I think too many architecture offices are working with the same methods they used in the 70s, many contractors adopt technologies only when they are obliged to by legislation or by profit. Digital should not be seen as a caprice of sexy forms, digital is the only viable way to make the construction industry more efficient, to reduce the carbon footprint of our buildings, and to design better places to live for everyone. Education is key for this, students should be taught technology of construction rather than techniques of constructions. They should be able to communicate and work in interdisciplinary teams since day 1 of the project, and think more holistically and pragmatically about buildings, and the implications of their design. To design for tools, and develop tools to materialize their designs.

Can the choice of building method be a device to address gender inequality in the construction sector? Consent Form Yes

Please tick the appropriate boxes

Taking Part in the Project I have read and understood the project information sheet dated 18/07/2019; or the project has been fully explained to me. (If you answer No to this question please do not proceed with this consent form until you are fully aware of what your participation in the project will mean.)

I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the project.

I agree to take part in the project. I understand that by taking part in the project I will be required to answer questions/be interviewed. As agreed in advance, this will be conducted and recorded in person, conducted as a recorded phone or Skype interview, or responded to by email.

I understand that taking part is voluntary and that I can withdraw from the study at any time before 09/09/2019. I do not have to give any reasons for why I no longer want to take part and there will be no adverse consequences if I choose to withdraw.

How my information will be used during and after the project I understand that my name and professional role will be presented in the research, unless I, or you, have indicated otherwise in advance. However, other personal details such as phone number, address and email address etc. will not be revealed to people outside the dissertation project.

I understand and agree that my words may be quoted in publications, reports, web pages, and other research outputs. I understand that I will be named in these outputs unless I specifically request not to be.

I understand and agree that other authorised researchers will have access to this research data only if they agree to preserve the confidentiality of the information as requested in this form.

I understand and agree that other authorised researchers may use my research data in publications, reports, web pages, and other research outputs, only if they agree to preserve the confidentiality of the information as requested in this form.

I give permission for the research data that I provide to be deposited in The University of Sheffield Research Data Catalogue and Repository so it can be used for future research and learning.

So that the information you provide can be used legally by the researchers I agree to assign the copyright I hold in any materials generated as part of this project to The University of Sheffield. Name of participant Gabriella Rossi

Signature

Date

16/09/2019 Name of Researcher Rosa Turner Wood

Signature

Date

Project contact details for further information: Rosa Turner Wood, Rturnerwood1@sheffield.ac.uk Dr Wen-Shao Chang, 0114 222 0370, w.chang@sheffield.ac.uk Professor Karim Hadjri, 0114 222 0307, k.hadjri@sheffield.ac.uk Sheffield School of Architecture, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN The template of this consent form has been approved by the University of Sheﬃeld Research Ethics Commi�ee and is available to view here: h�ps://www.sheﬃeld.ac.uk/rs/ethicsandintegrity/ethicspolicy/further-guidance/homepage

18th July 2019 Research title: Can the choice of building method be a device to address gender inequality in the construction sector? You are being invited to take part in this research project. Before you decide to do so, it is important you 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. Ask me if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for reading this. Projects purpose This research project aims to investigate whether specific methods of construction can be utilised as a means to address gender inequality within the industry. The dissertation research seeks to understand the issues that prevent equal female representation in the construction industry, and to determine best practice to increase female participation. Why have I been chosen? You have been chosen because your professional role, skills or interests align or are relevant to the research topic being examined. Do I have to take part? It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you will be able to keep a copy of this information sheet and will be asked to sign a consent form. You can withdraw at any time during the interview process. You do not have to give a reason. What will happen to me if I take part? If you decide to take part you will be asked to answer questions regarding the research subject, estimated to take up to thirty minutes in total to answer. Depending on what we have agreed in advance, questions will be answered and recorded in person, conducted as a recorded phone or Skype interview, or responded to by email. What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part? Participating in the research is not anticipated to cause you any disadvantages or discomfort. What are the possible benefits of taking part? Whilst there are no immediate benefits for those people participating in the project, it is hoped that this research will contribute to a larger dialogue on female participation in the construction sector. Will my taking part in this project be kept confidential? Your name and professional role will be presented in the research, unless I, or you, have indicated otherwise in advance. However, any additional personal information, such as contact information, will not be shared, and will only be accessible to my supervisor and myself.

18th July 2019 What is the legal basis for processing my personal data? According to data protection legislation, I am required to inform you that the legal basis I am applying in order to process your personal data is that ‘processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest’ (Article 6(1)(e)). Further information can be found in the University’s Privacy Notice https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/dataprotection/privacy/general What will happen to the data collected, and the results of the research project? Results of the research will be published. If you wish to be given a copy of any reports resulting from the research, please ask us to put you on our circulation list. Who is the Data Controller? The University of Sheffield will act as the Data Controller for this study. This means that the University is responsible for looking after your information and using it properly. Who has ethically reviewed the project? This research complies with the Sheffield School of Architecture’s Approved Generic Research Ethics requirements. What if something goes wrong and I wish to complain about the research? Should you wish to raise a complaint in regards to the research conducted please contact my dissertation tutor Dr Wen-Shao Chang. If, after contact, you do not feel that this complaint has been handled to your satisfaction, you can contact Professor Karim Hadjri, Head of School, Sheffield School of Architecture. Contact details for both can be found below. Contact for further information Rosa Turner Wood Rturnerwood1@sheffield.ac.uk Dr Wen-Shao Chang Sheffield School of Architecture, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN 0114 222 0370, w.chang@sheffield.ac.uk Professor Karim Hadjri Sheffield School of Architecture, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN 0114 222 0307, k.hadjri@sheffield.ac.uk Should you have any questions in advance, please contact me. Thank you for taking part in this research.

Rosa Turner Wood 180208139