Ewart, I J (2019) The social consequences of minor innovations in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 37(9), pp. 537-549. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Innovation studies in construction focus on a desire to increase economics and efficiency at a large scale. This has resulted in a skewed perspective that sees only major corporations with substantial R&D resources, complex projects, or national interests at the heart of innovation. By adopting anthropological methods, it becomes possible to examine the two aims of this paper: to demonstrate that an accumulation of minor innovations can have significant consequences; and to show that these are inherently social rather than purely economic. Results come from fieldwork studying the improvisatory house-building practices of the Kelabit people of rural Borneo, tracing changes to the technologies used for roofing and foundations, and describes how these are mutually entangled with new social structures. The conclusion is that we should think more broadly about the forms and effects of innovation in construction and recognize the significance of improvisation at the level of the individual or small group.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | house building; innovation studies; kelabit; minor innovations; social change |
| Index terms: | construction innovation, building practice, roofing, efficiency, complex project, foundations, heart, social structure |
| Subjects: | social theory, performance management, structural engineering, medical science and clinical practice, design practice, building construction, strategic project management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Construction Technology, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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