Sage, D (2017) Thinking with materialities in construction management: A response to Alexander Styhre. Construction Management and Economics, 35(11-12), pp. 657-662. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Alexander Styhre recently challenged Construction Management and Engineering (CME) scholarship to develop a stronger contribution to debates around materiality in mainstream management and organization studies. The rationale for his challenge is that CME scholars have a unique engagement with an important materiality–the built environment–that affords them a significant, yet largely unrealized, potential to inform wider debates about the materiality of social and organizational life. In my response here I do not disagree with Styhre’s overall argument. Instead I critically reflect, via a discussion of two themes implicit within his proposals–hiddenness and managerial power–on the rather unitary formulation of his argument. In so doing I do not so much seek to flag up challenges as to enliven his proposals by discussing the breadth of opportunities for contribution presented to CME academics in engaging with materialities with general management and organization scholarship.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; critical social theory; journal rankings; managerialism; materiality; power |
| Index terms: | critical social theory, managerialism, proposal, built environment, journal, materiality |
| Subjects: | management, infrastructure and transport systems, social theory and frameworks, sociology, project planning, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Project Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTA |
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