Innovation transfer in construction: re-interpreting factor-based research from the perspective of the social construction of technology (SCOT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The construction industry has shown an inherent inability to adopt advanced technological innovations. The construction innovation literature is highly fragmented and outlines an overwhelming number of factors that arguably influence the transfer of technological innovations in construction. Factor-based research in the construction innovation literature tends to set out technological innovations and their adoption as socially neutral events, overlooking the role of context in the adoption process. Hence, the authors’ understanding of how technological innovations are transferred and implemented in the construction industry remains limited by the constraints of reductionist approaches adopted by factor-based research. This paper aims to advance the authors’ understanding of the actual experiences of technological innovations transfer in construction. Instead of introducing another set of factors, the research, through empirical investigation, develops a comprehensive and holistic framework to re-interpret the existing factor-based literature taking into consideration the role of the construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations. Design/methodology/approach This research uses a participatory exploratory multiple case study design strategy, which has much in common with action research. The factors that could influence the transfer of technological innovations were investigated in three selected case studies over an extended period of time. During the research, a prototype system application of construction integration was used as a basis to discuss the adoption of technological innovations. Findings The findings suggest moving from the commonly held beliefs in the rational school of technological innovation and the functionalist paradigm towards constructivist approaches to capture the role of context and the stoically constructed nature of technological innovations. It is suggested that construction companies need to develop management capabilities to manage the changing political environments of the adoption process. The research supports the emerging view of technological innovations in construction as a collaborative-based innovation, which is a function of relationships and context. Research limitations/implications The research is limited by the settings of the action research design and the use of an interpretive approach. Because the focus was on investigating the “why” question, little attention was given to the “how” question. Accordingly, the findings provide little insights into the way organizations can manage the changing political and social environment of the adoption process. The authors also acknowledge that in spite of their best efforts to build a theoretically grounded framework of factors, they may have overlooked some relevant studies. However, the objective of this research was not to conduct a systematic literature review or to come up with a framework that quantitatively captures all previous research studies; instead, the objective was to build a holistic framework that can be used as a base to analyze the role of construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations in the adoption process. Practical implications The research offers several practical insights. First, it suggests that construction companies need to develop management capabilities to be able to lead the changing political environment of the adoption process successfully. Second, the research supports the emerging view of technological innovations in construction as a collaborative-based innovation that is a function of relationship. From a policy perspective, the research provides the basis to reconsider the effectiveness of federal and provincial policies that promote advanced technological Initiatives. The majority of these policies focus on the technical aspects in assessing the adoption of technological innovation, providing little incentives to companies to manage the changing political and social environment of the adoption process. Originality/value This research offers several theoretical and methodological contributions. First, it advances the authors’ understanding of the actual experiences of the transfer of technological innovations in construction organizations. Second, instead of introducing another set of factors, the research develops a framework to re-interpret the existing factor-based literature, considering the role of construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations. The research uses the theoretical lens of the social construction of technology framework to analyze the adoption process. The existing literature suggests that such research is scarce and highly needed. Third, unlike the mainstream reductionist approaches, this research adopts an exploratory action research inquiry design that uses both inductive and deductive inquiry approaches to understand the socially constructed nature of innovation transfer in construction. The adopted research design offers a valuable methodological contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".