Sidoli, J S (2021) Disputing in the built environment. PhD thesis, Open University, UK.
Abstract
This PhD argues, in the context of conflict resolution in the built environment, that negotiated settlements are a human good – and ergo are worth pursuing in most cases – and that pragmatism, rather than 'rights' talk, is properly at the forefront of most decision-making in the private law context. This challenges the dominant discourse, which sanctifies rights, views court-based litigation as a panacea, and lawyers and binary win-lose scenarios as 'resolutions'. This thesis shows, through the interaction of theory and practice, that the private law sphere is distinct from the public law paradigm. Contrary to the orthodoxy of the theorists criticised in the PhD, alternative dispute resolution works for the good of the parties and for the common good. Grounded lawyers, with due humility, can work with clients and opponents to reach honourable compromises, encouraging people on all sides of many private law disputes to move forward in their lives with a due sense of proportion.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative dispute resolution; built environment; conflict resolution; dispute resolution; disputes; litigation; client; lawyer |
| Index terms: | lawyer, pragmatism, alternative dispute resolution, decision-making, litigation, dispute, conflict resolution, resolution, interaction, built environment, paradigm |
| Subjects: | philosophical concept, infrastructure and transport systems, decision analysis, conflict resolution, education and knowledge transfer, dispute resolution, profession, behavioral psychology, contract management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Urban Studies, Risk Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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