IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v34y2016i7-8p446-457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking construction expertise with posthumanism

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel John Sage

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel John Sage, 2016. "Rethinking construction expertise with posthumanism," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(7-8), pages 446-457, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:34:y:2016:i:7-8:p:446-457
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2015.1122201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2015.1122201
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2015.1122201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:34:y:2016:i:7-8:p:446-457. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.