Nyström, J (2005) The definition of partnering as a wittgenstein family-resemblance concept. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5), pp. 473-481. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This article on partnering and family-resemblance makes two contributions to the debate about the definition of partnering in construction. The first is a distinction between general prerequisites, components and goals when discussing the concept. In order to understand what is specific about partnering the focus should be on the components, which are identified through a literature review. The second contribution is to apply Ludwig Wittgenstein's idea of family-resemblance to the partnering concept. His idea is that a complex concept can be understood as a network of overlapping similarities. From the literature review it is concluded that there are two necessary components in partnering - trust and mutual understanding - and that a number of different components can be added to form a specific variant of partnering. This provides a new method to define the vague and multifaceted concept of partnering in a flexible and structured way.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | components; construction; definition; family-resemblance; general prerequisites; goals; partnering; wittgenstein |
| Index terms: | literature review, partnering |
| Subjects: | partnership management, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PA |
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