Chan, P W; van Ewijk, E; Stam, K and Heintz, J (2024) Navigating paradoxes of interorganisational collaboration for sustainability transitions: Experiences in and of two living laboratories. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
Interorganisational collaboration has been a longstanding, central topic of interest to researchers and practitioners in construction management. Early studies have approached collaboration through factors- or indicators-oriented modes of theorising, with more recent studies zooming in on the practices of collaboration. Yet, how collaboration emerges and what effortful accomplishments need to be in place for collaboration to work remain under-explored. In this paper, we investigate how interorganisational collaboration emerges in the context of sustainability transitions, where transitions are characterised by long-term endeavours that go beyond a single project, and which are typically known for high levels of uncertainty and novelty. Through two living laboratories for regenerating the port cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, in which we work as engaged scholars in these settings we analysed how, how actors navigate through the paradoxes of identity, challenge specificity, and temporal uncertainties are analysed as they come together to learn to collaborate.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; engaged scholarship; living lab; paradoxes; transitions |
| Index terms: | laboratory, Amsterdam, paradox, collaboration, theorizing, practitioner, interorganizational, identity |
| Subjects: | practitioner, Geography, data science, sociology, business, social theory and frameworks, management, research management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Geographical Context |
| 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