Rooke, J and Clark, L (2005) Learning, knowledge and authority on site: A case study of safety practice. Building Research & Information, 33(6), pp. 561-570. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The ethnographic research reported here reveals patterns of authority and learning on an experimental construction site that are significant for the promotion of a safety culture. It seeks to display the methods of understanding used by site personnel to constitute the construction site as a local work site. In making these explicit, an alternative is offered to recent suggestions that critical studies of situated learning demand recourse to historical or macro resources. Findings confirm insights from previous studies, detailing in addition: the role of trial and error; alternative bodies of knowledge underpinning competing authority structures; and complex and subtle patterns of the informal authority of elite manual workers, its ambiguity and its limitations. The experiential knowledge valued by site personnel forms a basis for the recognition of authority on site that can conflict with that of construction professionals. The conflict between forms of authority and knowledge can inhibit the dissemination of good safety practice: initiatives will meet significant resistance if they contradict the experiential knowledge of site operatives; if they do not make use of this experiential knowledge, they may fail to address hazards fully; methods of site learning, particularly in the development of innovative practice, are inherently hazardous.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | authority; ethnography; health and safety; knowledge; organization; organizational culture; site management; unique adequacy requirement |
| Index terms: | construction professional, organizational culture, site operative, case study, personnel, health and safety, promotion, ethnography, construction site, site management, dissemination, safety culture |
| Subjects: | sociology, work location, construction operations, data collection methods, practitioner, qualitative and interpretive research, management, professional development, health safety and environment, knowledge translation |
| Topics: | Information Management, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Site Management, Human Resources, Health and Safety |
| 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