Sage, D J (2016) Rethinking construction expertise with posthumanism. Construction Management and Economics, 34(7-8), pp. 446-457. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Expertise is commonly understood to be a distinct, even defining, aspect of being human: an attribute related to our efficacies to come to know and influence the, mostly non-human, world around us. In construction, expertise is commonly defined as the acquisition of skills and knowledge related to new technical processes, organizational routines, health and safety codes, even cultural norms. Despite the development of rule-following 'expert systems' in construction and beyond, the proposal that non-human technologies and artefacts can share our expertise is thus to be regarded with doubt: humans are human because of their lived expertise to undertake tasks faster and better than machines and other non-humans. Increasingly, however, this anthropocentric view of expertise can be challenged by a 'posthuman turn' that is gathering pace across the social sciences and humanities. The work of four seminal posthuman thinkers is drawn upon to evaluate the distinct, and varied, contribution that posthumanism might make to how we understand notions of construction expertise. Fictional examples of construction practices illustrate the challenge and theoretical and practical opportunities in rethinking construction expertise via posthumanism.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | expertise; posthumanism; sociomateriality |
| Index terms: | expert system, proposal, sociomateriality, artefact, social science, organizational routine, norms, posthumanism, acquisition, health and safety |
| Subjects: | business, social theory, project planning, sociology, philosophical theory, health safety and environment, data management, theoretical framing |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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