Moving targets: Managing interinstitutional relationships in green building design and construction

Henn, R L (2013) Moving targets: Managing interinstitutional relationships in green building design and construction. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, USA.

Abstract

The act of building typically results in significant consumption of land and natural resources through both construction and building use, as well as the production of both indoor air pollution and landfill waste. Yet green building, which reduces these negative environmental impacts, still constitutes a minority of building practices despite its rapid increase in popularity. Significant technical and economic hurdles to green building have been overcome, but societal barriers remain that include norms, values, and expectations of what is “the right thing to do” when designing and constructing a building. Little is known about how emergent concerns such as green building influence and disseminate through fragmented fields such as building design and construction, where a multiplicity of required actors coordinate their work among multiple meaning systems, backgrounds, and traditions. To address this gap in knowledge, I use an inductive, qualitative approach to examine the engagement of individuals who bring multiple values and meanings to their material practices, using the following three research questions: How is the professional jurisdiction of new tasks determined in an emergent field? How do actors negotiate situations of institutional complexity? How can managers better prepare for emergent expectations? My data suggest that (a) the determination of professional jurisdiction over new green building tasks relies on the non-material professional resources of expertise, interest, voice, and time; (b) a limited set of institutional orders structure society, and exist in a distinct hierarchy for each individual, organization, and profession. The execution of a green building requires advocates who view green building practices as a method to achieve high worth within the orders they value highly; and (c) emergent expectations such as green building become central to a manager’s concern when advocates for green practices gain the triple characteristics of power, legitimacy, and urgency. These findings provide an enhanced understanding of the social barriers to green building, as well as how multiple values and emergent meanings are negotiated by professionals in a fragmented industry.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: complexity; landfill; natural resources; building design; green building; pollution; environmental impact; professional
Index terms: green building, environmental impact, legitimacy, building practice, landfill, complexity, norms, consumption, society, manager, jurisdiction, meaning, minority, design and construction, profession, indoor air pollution, land, pollution, building design, natural resource, qualitative approach
Subjects: research methods, communities and social development, building construction, institututions, practitioner, waste management, environmental impact, consumer economics, architectural design, contractual arrangements, legal systems, environmental resource management, design practice, environmental health, systems engineering, sociology, real estate economics
Topics: Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Ethics, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

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