Whyte, J and Sexton, M (2011) Motivations for innovation in the built environment: New directions for research. Building Research & Information, 39(5), pp. 473-482. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Innovation in the built environment involves multiple actors with diverse motivations. Policy-makers find it difficult to promote changes that require cooperation from these numerous and dispersed actors and to align their sometimes divergent interests. Established research traditions on the economics and management of innovation pay only limited attention to stakeholder choices, engagement and motivation. This paper reviews the insights that emerge as research in these traditions comes into contact with work on innovation from sociological and political perspectives. It contributes by highlighting growing areas of research on user involvement in complex innovation, collective action, distributed innovation and transition management. To differing extents, these provide approaches to incorporate the motivations of different actors into theoretical understanding. These indicate new directions for research that promise to enrich understanding of innovation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; design; innovation theory; institutions; networks; stakeholders; transitions |
| Index terms: | cooperation, motivation, collective action, innovation theory, built environment |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, infrastructure and transport systems, psychology, communities and social development |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Human Resources, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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