Newton, S (2016) The being of construction management expertise. Construction Management and Economics, 34(7-8), pp. 458-470. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Where logical positivism potentially leads to abstraction, social constructivism potentially leads to relativism. Neither perspective does full justice to the study of construction management expertise. Social realism aims to recover declarative knowledge (theory) as an integral component of expertise without denying a place for deliberate practice. The issue is how to bridge between explicit and implicit forms of knowledge. Returning to the account of tacit knowing proposed by Polanyi, the nature of expertise is characterized in both declarative and personal knowledge terms. This is a limited characterization of expertise, but the social realism enterprise raises a number of critical issues: the body of knowledge; human agency; and deliberate practice. From a social realism perspective the production of theory is critical to the exercise of expertise, but theory is meaningless in the context of professional practice unless and until it is embodied and enacted. It is the being of construction management that gives purpose and value to the theory.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | body of knowledge; deliberate practice; expert judgement; knowledge management; tacit knowing |
| Index terms: | exercise, critical issue, professional practice, knowledge management, expert judgement, agency, realism, justice, positivism, body of knowledge, management expertise |
| Subjects: | sociology, knowledge management, health behaviours and lifestyles, risk assessment, professional development, philosophical concept, legal systems, education and knowledge transfer |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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