Hugill, D (1998) Illuminating a psychological theory (in a construction management context). In: Hughes, W (ed.) Proceedings of 14th Annual ARCOM Conference, 9-11 September 1998, Reading, UK.
Abstract
The study of therapeutic communities towards the end of WW2 provided psychologists with new conceptual models of group behaviour. Founded upon Freudian theories of the unconscious these models have remained largely unquestioned for fifty years. Recent attempts to validate these theories have proved problematic, which may in part be attributed to the quantitative instruments adopted. This paper discusses new work, which proposes an alternative approach following phenomenological principles. The discussion commences with a review of theory building in the field of group dynamics since the early 1920s. Illustrations from the early work of Wilfred Bion are offered together with more recent examples of group behaviour founded upon the notion of unconscious forces. An attempt to elucidate the 'unconscious' is made by recourse to metaphysics. The paper concludes with a discussion of research instruments to capture the phenomena under consideration.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | organization; psychology; phenomenology; unconscious forces |
| Index terms: | phenomenology, psychology, group dynamics, theory building |
| Subjects: | methods and analysis, sociology, behavioral psychology, data science |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here