Moore, D R and Dainty, A R J (2002) Criticizing the 'techniques of communication' approach: A response. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
A response is provided to the critique by Wild (2001) of Moore and Dainty’s research concerning teamworking in UK design and build (D&B) projects. The response covers two significant aspects of the critique. Firstly, a deconstruction of the concept of residual categories is presented. This is identified as a tool used in the study of problems within the field of economics, particularly macroeconomics. The application of such a tool to a problem of a socio-dynamic nature is critically questioned. Secondly, the suggested alternative emphasis on 'situations' is explored. This paper posits that a more appropriate perspective on the issue of the role and value of teams within projects can be found in a combination of D’Herbemont and Cesar’s development of the concept that project stakeholders can be identified as antagonists or allies to the project, and the work of Wenger and others on communities of practice. The paper also seeks to develop further suggestions flowing from the initial research through a consideration of the emerging issue of sapiential authority endowed on what are referred to by Banner and Gagne as knowledge workers.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | residual categories; team; sapiential authority; allies and antagonists; communities of practice |
| Index terms: | communities of practice, design and build, critique, project stakeholder, macroeconomics |
| Subjects: | sociology, knowledge management, evaluation and assessment methods, economic theory, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Information Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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