Fu, W K; Lo, H P and Drew, D S (2006) Collective learning, collective knowledge and learning networks in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(10), pp. 1019-1028. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The interrelationships between collective learning, collective knowledge and learning networks are complex and difficult, especially in a construction context. A questionnaire survey was carried out in Hong Kong to test the hypothesis that practitioners who need a wider domain of knowledge for work learn more actively through their learning networks. This empirical work revealed a positive association between the demand for learning from others at work and the size of construction practitioners' learning networks. The analysis also revealed two opposing aspects of practitioners' learning behaviour influenced by the nature of their work. First, civil engineers tend to manage larger learning networks, given that they very often need to seek advice from other practitioners to deal with issues beyond their specialities at work and coordinate outputs of other practitioners as the project leader. Second, draughtsmen and clerks of works (or inspectors of works), whose work mainly involves complying with a finite scope of predetermined instructions and rules, appear not very active in network learning. These findings will be useful in developing learning policy for enhancing the competitiveness of the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; knowledge; learning; network; rule |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, construction industry, competitiveness, civil engineer, construction practitioner, survey, questionnaire, practitioner |
| Subjects: | market analysis, industry analysis, Geography, professional development, profession, data collection methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Information Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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