Grosse, H (2015) Trust and construction projects: An auto-ethnographic exploration. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
Associates, who use partnering as a form of cooperation, need to trust each other. However, even if one considers trust to be an expectation of good will, the partners will still need to have an understanding on the terms of their cooperation. How reflexivity and tactful action might enhance trust, cooperation and mutual understanding is here investigated in depth from a personal perspective. This auto-ethnographic study draws on the personal experiences of the author, who runs a construction business. The layered text account serves as a tool to explore multiple levels of reflection. An investigation is undertaken to consider the underlying patterns of judgements of trust, as well as the shifting nature of the context. Negotiators do not possess a sufficient understanding to effectively judge when to trust a partner. However, through the application of tactful action and reflexive investigation of one's self, one's partner and the context of the situation, a better understanding and better judgements of trust can be achieved. For those seeking partnerships in construction projects, one should not underestimate the importance of critically reflecting on their own practice and their own understanding of others.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | auto-ethnography; negotiation; partnering; reflexivity; trust |
| Index terms: | cooperation, reflection, partnership, exploration, reflexivity, auto-ethnography, investigation, negotiation, construction project, partnering |
| Subjects: | partnership management, psychology, conflict resolution, research design and methodology, data collection methods, professional development, research paradigm research concept, environmental resource management, production management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Sustainability, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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