Rodger, D; Callaghan, N and Thomson, C (2019) The integration of retrofit practice within social housing. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
The elderly are recognised as one of the most vulnerable groups within society and the lack of 'decent' dwellings is recognised as key future challenges to the economy, environment and society. The provision of appropriate housing has become an area of policy development overlapping a number of government ministries and departments; covering welfare, health and social support. It is considered a key priority which has the potential for holistic integration across a range of service providers. This study follows the first phase of research which analysed 24 stakeholder interviews across housing, energy, health and governance; investigating the wider issues preventing holistic retrofit practice within social housing. Within this, three themes emerged: misaligned decision-making, disjointed collaboration and changing perceptions. Therefore, this second phase takes a situational understanding of these complex issues, exploring through an in-depth case study the approach taken to examining nature of collaboration, knowledge sharing and expertise to discover the “truth” of the problem through a mixed method, holistic case study of a social housing provider within Scotland, UK. Under a constructivist grounded theory approach, hierarchical interviews were conducted with stakeholders exploring the decision-making and sequence of practice and knowledge, through the lens of collaboration theory. The emergent data was utilised to create questionnaires to test the key themes, and determine if stakeholder perception of industry is representative of those living within the properties. Process and knowledge mapping is undertaken to evaluate the interconnections, key themes, and actions where knowledge and collaboration disconnect occur. The research reveals that during a period of prolonged austerity and budgetary cuts it is of optimal value to provide solutions and recommendations to promote knowledge sharing and partnership working to aid performance, whilst sustaining competitive advantage. Thus, preventing measures being taken to increase revenue such as increasing rent for the most vulnerable within society.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ageing population, collaboration, institutional theory, retrofit and social housing. |
| Index terms: | institutional theory, elderly, austerity, competitive advantage, interview, case study, society, governance, mixed method, grounded theory, partnership, revenue, knowledge sharing, vulnerable group, decision-making, mapping, integration, collaboration, ageing population, questionnaire, Scotland, social housing, housing |
| Subjects: | business, construction type, data collection methods, economic analysis, knowledge management, Geography, spatial and geospatial analysis, management, theoretical framing, communities and social development, decision analysis, sociology, market analysis, partnership management, demography, housing and residential development, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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