The data you're too afraid to collect: why construction needs to start asking about gender

Construction keeps asking how to attract and retain women, but too often it still doesn’t ask the most basic question: who is having which experience?

Without it, we don’t know who gets included, who gets overlooked, and who is being heard.

Since founding We Build Too, I’ve become increasingly aware of something that’s surprisingly easy to miss. Once you notice it, you can’t unsee it.

Everyone is constantly asking people for feedback.

At careers fairs. On apprenticeship applications. After training courses. Through employee engagement surveys. At networking events. On website forms. During recruitment.

Yet all too often, one simple question is missing: gender.

That means we miss the chance to understand how women and men experience construction differently. We can measure confidence, satisfaction, belonging or safety, but without gendered data, we strip those insights of the context that gives them meaning.

If we don’t understand where experiences differ, it’s much harder to improve them.

We can’t improve what we can’t see

This isn’t unique to construction and the built environment.

The World Health Organisation has warned that “the lack of sex-disaggregated data risks policies and treatments that fail women”

Similarly, the United Nations (UN Women report) highlighted that gender data gaps can lead to gender-blind policies.

Basically, if the evidence we’re working from doesn’t reflect everyone’s experiences, the decisions we make won’t either.

We’ve seen the consequences before.

For years, crash test dummies have been designed around the average male body, which contributed to women being at greater risk of injury in the same collision and 17% more likely to die in a collision than men.

Medical research has also historically focused more heavily on men, meaning symptoms experienced by women have been misunderstood, overlooked or diagnosed later.

The construction industry has its own examples.

PPE designed around male body shapes. Tools designed for larger hands. Welfare facilities that don’t adequately meet women’s needs.

None of these happened because people deliberately set out to exclude women. They happened because women weren’t properly represented in the evidence used to design the system.

The missing question in construction

One of the reasons I founded We Build Too was because I kept seeing the same gap.

We talk about attracting more women. We talk about retaining women. We talk about culture, belonging and inclusion.

Yet we don’t always collect the information which would help us understand whether women and men are actually experiencing the industry differently at scale.

Think about the moments we already ask people for feedback.

An open day. A college course. An apprenticeship. A training programme. An employee survey. An industry event. 

An exit survey.

Asking about gender can reveal far more than overall satisfaction alone.

It helps us ask better questions:

• Do women feel as safe on site?

• Are apprentices having different experiences depending on their gender?

• Are networking events equally welcoming?

• Do people leave training for different reasons?

• Are there differences in confidence, belonging or progression that we’d otherwise miss?

Without asking, we’re left relying on assumptions, but with the data, we can start making evidence-based decisions.

Why asking feels hard

The more I’ve researched this, the more I’ve come to understand why many organisations hesitate to ask.

It’s not usually because they don’t care. It’s because gender has become a topic people are afraid to handle badly.

Researchers and organisations are trying to balance real concerns:

• Protecting privacy.

• Using respectful, inclusive language.

• Avoiding questions that exclude or alienate people.

• Meeting data protection requirements.

• Making sure respondents feel comfortable completing surveys.

• And, in some cases, avoiding a backlash that can come from simply naming gender at all.

That fear shapes behaviour. It can make men uneasy about being seen with a female colleague or taking on a female apprentice, not because of anything she has done, but because they fear gossip, rumours or suspicion.

In other words, the problem isn’t gender itself. It’s the discomfort people have been taught to attach to it.

In fact, researching this article challenged some of my own thinking and introduced me to better ways of collecting demographic information.

The thing is, the answer isn’t to stop asking the question altogether; it’s to ask it better.

Good research starts with why

One of the biggest things I’ve learnt is that there isn’t one gender question that works in every situation. It depends on what you’re trying to understand.

Sometimes biological sex is the relevant information. For example, if you’re researching PPE fit, equipment design or health and safety, biological differences may be directly relevant to the question you’re trying to answer.

Other times, you’re trying to understand people’s lived experience, identity or sense of belonging. In those situations, asking about gender identity may be more appropriate.

The important question isn’t whether we should ask about gender. It’s whether we’re willing to understand what the answer tells us.

Once that’s clear, the question becomes much easier to design.

Good practice already exists:

• Explain why you’re collecting the information.

• Tell people how their data will be stored and protected.

• Use respectful and inclusive language.

• Avoid forcing people into categories that don’t describe them.

• Include a “Prefer not to say” option.

• Only collect information you’ll actually use.

Done well, demographic questions don’t divide people; they help us understand people’s experiences more accurately.

Better data helps everyone

Although We Build Too exists to improve outcomes for women in construction, better gender data benefits everyone because when women are seen properly, the whole industry improves.

Take mental health. Construction has one of the highest suicide rates of any industry. If we didn’t look at data by gender, age, occupation or other characteristics, we’d struggle to understand who is most affected or where support should be targeted.

The same principle applies across the workforce. Different groups may experience different barriers. Different opportunities. Different risks. Different reasons for joining or leaving.

If we don’t measure those differences, we can’t properly understand them.

Ultimately, gender shouldn’t be the only characteristic we pay attention to. Age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics all help build a more complete picture of how people experience the industry.

The aim isn’t to label people. It’s to understand whether different groups experience the same systems differently.

This is why We Build Too exists

As we’ve spoken to women across construction, one thing has become increasingly clear.

The sector doesn’t just have a representation gap; it has an insight gap.

There is no consistent source of gender-segregated workforce insight that helps employers, educators and policymakers understand how women’s experiences differ across the industry.

Without that evidence, we’re left making decisions based on assumptions, averages, and a version of the workforce that only tells part of the story.

Assumptions and averages don’t tell the whole story, and that’s one of the reasons we’re building We Build Too.

Alongside creating a platform that supports women entering and progressing in construction, we’re building an anonymised workforce insight platform that helps the industry better understand participation, belonging, barriers and retention.

Because every data point represents someone’s experience, and every missing data point represents an experience we haven’t fully understood.

Let’s stop being afraid of better questions

Collecting demographic information isn’t about labelling people; it’s about making better decisions.

Done thoughtfully, it helps us design safer workplaces, improve recruitment and retention, create better products and services, and build policies that reflect the people they’re meant to support.

Not asking doesn’t avoid difficult conversations; it just leaves us with incomplete evidence.

If construction is serious about attracting and retaining a more diverse workforce, then we need to become more comfortable asking good questions and using the answers responsibly.

Better questions lead to better evidence. Better evidence leads to better decisions. And better decisions help build a construction industry that actually reflects the people working in it. 

If this topic resonates, start asking what gender data your organisation is already collecting and what it’s missing. Let us know what you discover at hello@webuildtoo.com

References:

• World Health Organisation, Closing data gaps in gender.

• UN Women, Gender Data Outlook 2024: Unlocking Capacity, Driving Change