Purpose This study aims to examine gender differences in awareness and adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies among construction professionals in Ghana, addressing limited empirical evidence on whether male and female professionals experience different levels of engagement with emerging digital construction technologies in a developing-country context. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted among 350 construction professionals in Ghana. Gender-disaggregated analysis was used to examine differences in Industry 4.0 awareness and adoption. The study was informed by Diffusion of Innovations (DOI), the Technology–Organisation–Environment (TOE) framework and Gendered Organisations Theory. Descriptive statistics, independent-samples t-tests, partial least squares structural equation modelling measurement-model assessment, reliability analysis and K-means cluster analysis were used. Findings The results indicate moderate-to-high overall awareness and adoption, with a statistically significant gender-associated difference. Male respondents reported higher overall awareness/adoption scores than female respondents. K-means analysis identified distinct high- and low-awareness/adoption groups, indicating heterogeneity in digital engagement. The gender difference is interpreted through organisational and institutional conditions discussed in the TOE framework and Gendered Organisations Theory; however, these mechanisms were not directly tested as causal pathways. Practical implications The findings highlight the need for gender-responsive digital capacity development, equitable access to technology-oriented professional development and organisational practices that support inclusive participation in Construction 4.0. Originality/value The study provides empirical evidence on gender differences in Construction 4.0 awareness and adoption in Ghana and offers a conceptual framework integrating behavioural, organisational and gender-sensitive perspectives to interpret digital participation in a developing construction context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Williams et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: