Purpose Strong evidence shows gender-diverse workforces bring real benefits to organisational performance, innovation, and stakeholder engagement. Despite this, women remain underrepresented in Australia's property valuation profession. This study explores the experiences and views of female valuers to understand the structural, cultural, and social factors keeping this imbalance in place, and to propose practical strategies for change. Design/methodology/approach This study used a qualitative approach, based on a focus group discussion with twelve female valuers from private and government valuation firms in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were purposively selected to include senior practitioners across different valuation specialisations. The data were analysed using Braun and Clarke (2006) six-phase thematic analysis approach. Findings The findings clearly reveal a profession still deeply characterised by male dominance, with gender inequality operating with particular intensity in the commercial valuation subsector. Persistent social and cultural biases, discriminatory recruitment and promotion practices, the grey ceiling, inflexible project structures, and unpaid caregiving burdens collectively limit the entry, advancement, and retention of female valuers industry-wide. Diversity efforts are widely seen as performative rather than substantive. A notable counter-narrative also emerged: female valuers offer distinctive professional capabilities that can enhance service delivery in culturally specific contexts, representing an underutilised strategic asset for valuation firms. Originality/value This study contributes to an underexplored area of gender studies in property, advancing theory and practical guidance through frameworks of gendered organisations, intersectionality, and diversity work. Recommendations target valuation firms, professional bodies, and institutions, offering a multi-level blueprint for gender equity in Australian valuation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Halvitigala et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: