Rasmussen, G M G; Jensen, P L and Gottlieb, S C (2017) Frames, agency and institutional change: The case of benchmarking in Danish construction. Construction Management and Economics, 35(6), pp. 305-323. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This study examines change and the sources influencing the formulation and diffusion of policies in construction. The change examined is the introduction of a benchmarking policy initiative in the Danish construction industry. Using institutional theory with emphasis on the concepts of frames and framings, we show how strategically motivated actors are able to frame policy problems in ways that disclose the mixture of motives, interests and institutional mechanisms at play in change processes. In doing so, we contribute to the literature on the role of agency in institutional change and the framing of policy problems. We conclude by highlighting how insights gained from the framing perspective present a challenge to the dominant comprehensive rationalist view of the policy process and the formulation and implementation of reform initiatives.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; construction reform; frames; institutional theory; policy design |
| Index terms: | motive, institutional change, institutional theory, policy process, implementation, construction industry, framing, construction reform, policy design, benchmarking, agency |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, conceptual models, psychology, policy studies, business, industry analysis, sociology, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Procurement, Governance, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Human Resources |
| 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