Diversity initiatives are happening across the FE sector, reflecting the need – as highlighted in this article by JTL’s Clair Bradley – to address gender imbalances, particularly in the trades.
But my doctoral research into why young women choose engineering and trades routes shows that raising the visibility of male-dominated careers to girls and young women should not be the destination, but the starting point.
Showing girls a pink hard hat or a welding torch won’t shift entrenched participation patterns unless we also build plausible and viable spaces for them to belong, succeed, and be recognised on their own terms.
In interviews I conducted with young women at a large FE college, one consistent insight emerged: careers become thinkable and doable through layered social experiences at home, school and college, not through one-off interventions.
In my thesis I frame choice-making through three lenses: visible, plausible, and viable. Visibility is about bringing options into view; plausibility is about aligning those options with a young woman’s sense of self, values and identity; viability is about connecting skills, pathways and capital (social, cultural and institutional) so progress is attainable and recognised.
When FE providers fixate on visibility alone, they inadvertently treat girls as observers in a world designed for someone else. Our project in FE then is to invite participation, legitimise presence, and empower young women in male-dominated contexts.
This means reframing how we talk about trades and engineering qualifications.
Several participants I interviewed articulated their motivations in unexpected ways. Brickwork was a “creative craft” and plumbing was a “caring, socially useful vocation”. These are not soft glosses on tough jobs; they are legitimate dimensions of labour that many young women found compelling.
They offer broader narratives that reflect the full reality of the work: creativity, community impact, problem-solving, and systems thinking alongside technical skill. Doing this gives girls more ways to imagine themselves in a role without having to deny femininity or adopt a “tomboy” identity to justify being there.
Tokenistic gestures like a ‘Women in Trades/Engineering’ day can backfire. They risk communicating that women are an exception, or worse, a diversity goal to be met. What works instead is small, sustained practice:
- Marketing that names values, not just tools. Highlight creativity, care, social contribution and problem-solving alongside technical competence.
- Open events that widen the scope. Stop targeting only “girls who are good at maths” and start engaging those who enjoy design, making, fixing and finding creative solutions.
- Train all FE staff in gender-aware practice, challenging gender-blind approaches and everyday sexism.
- Group female learners where possible and create peer/mentor support networks.
- Audit workshop and classroom cultures, ensuring fair task allocation, inclusive language and clear reporting routes for issues.
Most critically, FE must shift from gender-blind to gender-aware practice. In my research, some trades and engineering tutors took pride in claiming “all learners are the same.” In reality, this can lead to young women encountering lower expectations, and everyday sexism disguised as banter.
Gender-neutral rhetoric can mask gendered cultures. Gender-aware inductions, staff training and mentoring are practical tools to tackle the hidden curriculum, which includes language in workshops, allocation of tasks, assumptions about physical strength and who gets stretched versus who gets sidelined.
Pairing women where possible, facilitating cross-programme tutorials and establishing peer and alumni networks are inexpensive, high-impact steps that address belonging.
We should also not underestimate parents’ roles, as many girls’ choices were anchored in home practices such as exposure to tools. Colleges should deliberately involve parents in open events and guidance, as co-constructors of plausibility. If home life remains firmly bounded by traditional gender expectations, then non-traditional pathways rarely feel plausible.
None of this avoids the harder issue: misogyny and sexism exist in classrooms and workshops. FE leaders can and should equip tutors and support teams with tools and expectations. Challenge sexist banter, set equal tasks, use inclusive language, recognise gendered microaggressions and maintain safe learning spaces.
If we want diversity across male-dominated qualifications and careers, we must move beyond visibility and build spaces that make women’s presence plausible and their progress viable.
Diversity won’t arrive through banners; it will be built in the workshop, in the timetable and in the language we use.
Your thoughts