Teo, M and Loosemore, M (2014) Getting to the heart of community action against construction projects. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
Construction projects have a potentially large economic, social, ecological and cultural impact on the communities in which they take place. As these communities become increasingly empowered, educated, connected and organised, there is increasing evidence that they are able and willing to mobilise action when they become concerned about the impact of construction projects on their lives. From a construction project management perspective, there has been virtually no research into the structure of these groups and how best to interact with them for mutually beneficial outcomes. Using a thematic story telling approach which draws on ethnographic method and social contagion theories, an in-depth analysis of community action against a construction project is presented. It is concluded that these groups are largely anarchic but are held together and sustained by a core group of activists which are often invisible to outsiders. This raises numerous challenges for project managers in addressing community concerns and in mitigating potential cost and time escalations associated with such action.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | community; action; protest; project management |
| Index terms: | evidence, project manager, project management, construction project, construction project management, heart, community action |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, production management, medical science and clinical practice, profession, communities and social development, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Health and Safety |
| 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