Teller, J (2001) An on-line glossary as a way to foster the construction of a common culture among urban experts, stakeholders and decision-makers. Construction Innovation, 1(4), pp. 259-271. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Negotiation and public participation are a key aspect of present urban development projects. Argumentation support tools, based on the Toulmin logic, have often been presented as a way to increase the accountability of the debates between the different urban actors. It should still be assumed that any collaborative decision making requires some common culture to make the dialogue possible and constructive. Such a common understanding of basic terms, references and methods is often missing in present-day urban disputes, especially when complex issues such as cultural heritage are at stake. The present paper discusses the relevancy of web glossaries as a way to build up such a common culture among urban experts, stakeholders and decision makers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaborative decision making; cultural heritage; urban development |
| Index terms: | negotiation, dispute, public participation, accountability, urban development, decision-making |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, participation process, urban design, decision analysis, conflict resolution, liability law |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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