Chan, P W (2016) Expert knowledge in the making: Using a processual lens to examine expertise in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 34(7-8), pp. 471-483. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Expertise in construction has typically been associated with the esoteric, where experts occupy privileged positions through their possession of specialist skills and knowledge. In this conceptual piece, an attempt is made to broaden this view of expertise found in the construction management literature by drawing on a reading of the process philosophical writings of Henri Bergson and others. Re-reading expertise from a processual standpoint, it is argued that our conceptualization of expertise in construction management should move beyond its treatment as a thing to bring to the fore expertise as an open-ended, ongoing, ever-evolving process of becoming. At the heart of this ontological shift of expertise in construction lies the emphasis on the tacit and recognition that expertise is, at the same time, interactional, intuitive and incidental. These ideas are illustrated in a vignette of environmental expertise in an airport context.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | becoming; intuition; la durée; duration; organization theory; process philosophy |
| Index terms: | heart, vignette, process philosophy, intuition, drawing, duration, becoming |
| Subjects: | research dissemination and communication, medical science and clinical practice, cognitive psychology, project controls, technical documentation, philosophical process |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Time Control, Health and Safety, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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