Grosse, H (2019) Lévinas' ethics in practice: A construction contractor’s account. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
This autoethnographic study offers a practitioner’s view of ethical problems in construction management. Using Lévinas' thoughts on ethics, I explore my personal experience running a German construction. In Lévinas work, ethics is first philosophy – for him, all philosophy must be grounded in ethics by facing the Other. Hence, I do not argue for ethics based on universal principles, but an ethical response to the Other one encounters. Facing the Other as the ethical moment requires genuine care and concern for this unknowable Other. Subsequently, acting ethically is an obligation and a personal choice which is not supportable by rational calculation.Drawing on my autoethnographic material, I illustrate these ethical moments in different situations. Through practitioner’s perspective on personal considerations, decisions and their consequences, I demonstrate the relevance and implications of this thinking for construction management.The ethical issues I faced brought me regularly to the limits of guiding ethical principles. But Lévinas offers a way forward by deliberately moving beyond principles and prioritising the encounter of the Other. Yet my positivist engineering training made it particularly difficult to accept thinking beyond ontological categories. While I reflect on being perplexed, insecure and struggling, I give an insider account of the application of postmodern ethics and the consequences for me as a practitioner in the construction industry. Doing so, I offer different ways of thinking about ethical dilemmas and passages out of resulting deadlocks. Therefore, this study might support practitioners facing similar issues. Since this work (a) showcases a distinctively postmodernist perspective on management ethics and draws extensively on other disciplines and (b) is grounded in practitioner experiences it contributes to the conceptual discussion about ethics in construction management research strongly connected to practice-relevant issues.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | autoethnography; ethics; lé,,,vinas; practitioner research |
| Index terms: | prioritizing, management research, philosophy, ethics, drawing, practitioner, construction contractor, construction industry |
| Subjects: | practitioner, research design and methodology, ethical practice, technical documentation, industry analysis, philosophical studies, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTA |
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