Teo, M M and Loosemore, M (2011) Community-based protest against construction projects: A case study of movement continuity. Construction Management and Economics, 29(2), pp. 131-144. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Community-based activism against proposed construction projects is growing. Many protests are poorly managed and escalate into long-term and sometimes acrimonious disputes which damage communities, firms and the construction industry as a whole. Using a thematic storytelling approach which draws on ethnographic method, within a single case study framework, new insights into the social forces that shape and sustain community-based protest against construction projects are provided. A conceptual model of protest movement continuity is presented which highlights the factors that sustain protest continuity over time. The model illustrates how social contagion leads to common community perceptions of development risk and opportunity, to a positive internalization of collective values and identity, to a strategic utilization of social capital and an awareness of the need to manage the emotional dynamics of protest through mechanisms such as symbolic artefacts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | community relations; construction project; contagion; protest; social networks |
| Index terms: | case study, dispute, identity, dynamics, construction industry, movement, community-based, protest movement, social capital, social network, artefact, construction project, community relations |
| Subjects: | production management, systems engineering, industry analysis, communities and social development, sociology, community engagement, dispute resolution, health behaviours and lifestyles, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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