Du Plessis, C and Cole, R J (2011) Motivating change: Shifting the paradigm. Building Research & Information, 39(5), pp. 436-449. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The broader framing of the decision-making processes of stakeholders within the sustainability debate is explored in the context of a paradigm shift that acknowledges the world as a complex, dynamic system. There is merit in adopting a paradigm informed by, and therefore suitable for dealing with, living systems, particularly as the paradigm is founded on holistic and flexible strategies. To move the discussion forward, a key concern examined here is what this different paradigm means for engaging and motivating stakeholders. Through questioning established notions of 'stakeholder' as defined in the business literature, and the traditional models of sustainable development, an alternative model of sustainability is presented that is grounded in a different worldview. The implications are considered of how the paradigm's adoption and the associated model of sustainability would change current practices for motivating social transformation in the built environment through stakeholder engagement. Three major shifts in thinking implicit in such a new model of sustainability are identified and examined: creating effective change in the complex social- ecological system presented by the built environment; how this worldview would redefine current notions of stakeholder engagement; and what the implications would be for mechanisms such as assessment and rating tools meant to change stakeholder behaviour.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assessment; buildings; built environment; complexity; paradigm shift; regenerative; stakeholders; sustainability; whole systems |
| Index terms: | built environment, sustainable development, transformation, paradigm, stakeholder engagement, decision-making process, complexity, strategy, framing |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, education and knowledge transfer, infrastructure and transport systems, conceptual models, business, health safety and environment, decision analysis, management, community and social dimensions |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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