Buser, M; Gottlieb, S C; de Gier, A and Andersson, R (2021) From concept to practice: Implementation of circular building as a process of translation. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-7 September 2021, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
The concept of circular building (CB) proposes to transform the current mode of production in the construction sector to mitigate climate changes and reduce fossil consumption. The concept has gained momentum among politicians and academics; however, it is only slowly penetrating the sector. In the paper, we aim at developing our understanding of how this concept is translated into specific organisational settings. Rather than focusing on the actions to support or prevent its dissemination, we focus on how the concept is brought into life as an organisational practice and through which processes and mechanism. Drawing on qualitative data from primarily interviews, we present a case study of two large Scandinavian contractors' efforts to implement CB. The results point at a diversity of positions and choices in translating CB within a specific organisational context. The concept of translation helps us to analyse the shaping of such processes and may consequently contribute to the development of the CB concept by directing attention to how circular ideas and concepts are translated across different contexts.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular buildings; translation |
| Index terms: | drawing, interview, case study, implementation, construction sector, consumption, climate change, dissemination |
| Subjects: | knowledge translation, industry analysis, data collection methods, climate science, consumer economics, technical documentation, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Research Practice, Sustainability, Procurement, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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