Skill and deskilling in the English building trades in the nineteenth-century

McCain, M L (1986) Skill and deskilling in the English building trades in the nineteenth-century. PhD thesis, Georgetown University, USA.

Abstract

Many traditional handcraft skills were duplicated or superseded by machine technology during the course of the Industrial Revolution in England in the nineteenth century, but recent historical analysis has revealed that many industries continued to employ skilled handcraft labor because a large, trained labor pool made using those workers more economical than the installation of expensive and often erratic machinery, or because there was little technological innovation within the industry. The building trades were among those which remained largely immune to widespread substitution of machinery, but they nevertheless suffered a significant loss of skill during this period. These trades were part of the "labor aristocracy", and the status and independence customarily associated with this group derived in part from the building workers' responsibility for the design and construction of buildings, which gave their jobs creativity and control. In the course of the nineteenth century, changes in the structure of the building industry and the re-orientation of society towards capitalist methods of production substantially reduced the workers' role and position in the building process, and caused often radical de-skilling of previously craft-skilled trades.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: England; building process; building trades; creativity; innovation; skills; technological innovation
Index terms: design and construction, technological innovation, building industry, creativity, England, building trade, building process, society
Subjects: industry analysis, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, practitioner, building construction, innovation and creative processes, communities and social development, Geography
Topics: Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Design Practice, Site Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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