Moore, D R (2001) William of Sen to Bob the Builder: Non-cognate cultural perceptions of constructors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(3), pp. 177-184. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
An examination from an historical perspective of the stereotype applied to constructors, with an emphasis on the contemporary stereotype of constructors within the UK construction industry, indicates that constructor stereotypes have become increasingly negative. Over the same period, the stereotype of architects has become increasingly positive and the status of architects has increased, whereas that of constructors has decreased. Possible factors in the development of such a situation are considered, as is the possibility of moving the constructor's negative stereotype to a more positive position through an awareness of the effects of the Bob the Builder cartoon character. There is evidence that Bob has become a hero to the current generation of pre-school children, with the consequence that this generation is more receptive to the possibility of constructors exhibiting behaviour which can be characterized in positive terms. Little evidence exists of the UK industry's reaction to this situation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architects; constructors; entitativity; expectancy effect; master masons; stereotyping |
| Index terms: | builder, evidence, stereotype, mason, children, architect, construction industry |
| Subjects: | demography, sociology, industry analysis, profession, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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