Johnston, Nicole R (2017) An examination of how conflicts of interest detract from developers upholding governance responsibilities in the transition phase of multi-owned developments: A grounded theory approach. PhD thesis, Griffith University, Australia.
Abstract
The multi-owned development (MOD) is a unique property type consisting of at least two individually owned lots tied to communally owned common property with a separate registered entity (the body corporate) created to govern and manage the property. While the body corporate is the ultimate governing entity and the orchestra of operations for much of a MOD's life, there is a period of time when a MOD's developer makes governing decisions. It is during this phase, the transition phase, that the developer can bind the body corporate to a myriad of arrangements and relationships. Although state based Australian legislation provides a framework for body corporate governance, concerns have been raised over the extent of power and control exerted by developers when tasked with governing. There is a paucity of academic research concerned with the MOD transition phase. This study is therefore exploratory in nature, as it seeks to uncover the nature of governance decisions made by developers during the transition phase. This study is guided by the principles of the grounded theory method, which focuses on creating conceptual frameworks or theories through building inductive analysis from the data collected. Method triangulation was used in order to promote rigour in the research. A combination of semi-structured interviews, document (legislative) analysis and structured interviews was undertaken.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Guilding, Christopher and Reid, Sacha |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | multi-owned development; body corporate; governance decisions; conflicts of interest; transition phase; Australia |
| Index terms: | governance, conflicts of interest, Australia, grounded theory, triangulation, corporate governance, conceptual framework, interview, legislation, multi-owned development |
| Subjects: | business, research design and methodology, data collection methods, Geography, theoretical framing, professional ethics, construction type, legal systems |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Geographical Context, Governance, Construction Technology, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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