Kanjanabootra, S and Corbitt, B (2016) Reproducing knowledge in construction expertise: A reflexive theory, critical approach. Construction Management and Economics, 34(7-8), pp. 561-577. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
An auto-ethnography and then analyses of narratives and ethnographies of other construction professionals are used to argue that reproduction of knowledge and expertise development is constrained by both normative professional thinking and a discourse of economic constraint generated by a highly competitive marketplace with a focus on time, cost, and quality trade-offs. The analysis of construction professionals' narratives suggests that expertise development in construction is essentially an incremental process built on scenarios and influenced mostly by context and people, discourses of practices, legalities and professional expectations. Sometimes that incrementalism is distorted through radical innovation, but that is rare. Construction expertise in these stories is reproduced from base level learning and grows through practice. Practitioners, it is argued, accumulate knowledge and expertise, but the practice that emanates remains bounded within prevailing discourse which itself changes incrementally.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | auto-ethnography and reflexivity; construction professionals; expertise; reproduction theory |
| Index terms: | ethnography, auto-ethnography, construction professional, reflexivity, reproduction theory, practitioner, narrative |
| Subjects: | practitioner, research design and methodology, research paradigm research concept, professional development, qualitative and interpretive research, social theory |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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