Institutions and institutional logics in construction safety management: the case of climatic heat stress

Jia, AY; Rowlinson, S; Loosemore, M; Xu, M; Li, B; Gibb, A

Institutions and institutional logics in construction safety management: the case of climatic heat stress

Jia, AY Rowlinson, S Loosemore, M

Xu, M Li, B Gibb, A

Permalink

Publisher:: Taylor and Francis Group
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Construction Management and Economics, 2017, 35, (6), pp. 338-367
Issue Date:: 2017-06-03

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Institutions and institutional logics in construction safety management the case of climatic heat stress.pdf		2.2 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Jia, AY
dc.contributor.author	Rowlinson, S
dc.contributor.author	Loosemore, M https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3189-4655
dc.contributor.author	Xu, M
dc.contributor.author	Li, B
dc.contributor.author	Gibb, A
dc.date.accessioned	2022-08-29T06:13:46Z
dc.date.available	2022-08-29T06:13:46Z
dc.date.issued	2017-06-03
dc.identifier.citation	Construction Management and Economics, 2017, 35, (6), pp. 338-367
dc.identifier.issn	0144-6193
dc.identifier.issn	1466-433X
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161039
dc.description.abstract	We employed a Glaserian grounded theory approach to explore the gap between behavioural safety and its unsatisfactory outcomes. Data were collected through ethnographic studies on the practice of managing heat stress on thirty-six construction sites in Hong Kong and Chonqing in mainland China. Two core concepts, institutions and institutional logics, are generated and defined to explain why safety rules do not necessarily produce safety behaviours. At society level, we explicated two pairs of institutional logics: the religion logics (Confucianism vs. pragmatism) and the market logics (rational market vs. individualism). At project organizational level, two logics of processing safety in production are explicated: a protection logic in the Chongqing context and a production logic in the Hong Kong context. The concepts and sub-concepts are compared to existing business literature for clarification of scopes. Empirical findings of the study suggest safety intervention needs to redirect its focus from promoting safety alone to addressing the institutional logics of the entire organization and its societal context practised by multiple levels of actors. We conclude that safety research would benefit from redirecting its focus of analysis from discourses, interviews or surveys to authenticated cases reconstructed through triangulation of actors’ discourses at multiple levels of an organization, third-party observation, physiological data and objective measurement of the work environment. Methodologically, this paper provides a detailed guidance for conducting grounded theory research with a focus of conceptualization.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Taylor and Francis Group
dc.relation.ispartof	Construction Management and Economics
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/01446193.2017.1296171
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	09 Engineering, 12 Built Environment and Design, 14 Economics
dc.subject.classification	Building & Construction
dc.title	Institutions and institutional logics in construction safety management: the case of climatic heat stress
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	35
utslib.for	09 Engineering
utslib.for	12 Built Environment and Design
utslib.for	14 Economics
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-08-29T06:13:44Z
pubs.issue	6
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	35
utslib.citation.issue	6

Abstract:

We employed a Glaserian grounded theory approach to explore the gap between behavioural safety and its unsatisfactory outcomes. Data were collected through ethnographic studies on the practice of managing heat stress on thirty-six construction sites in Hong Kong and Chonqing in mainland China. Two core concepts, institutions and institutional logics, are generated and defined to explain why safety rules do not necessarily produce safety behaviours. At society level, we explicated two pairs of institutional logics: the religion logics (Confucianism vs. pragmatism) and the market logics (rational market vs. individualism). At project organizational level, two logics of processing safety in production are explicated: a protection logic in the Chongqing context and a production logic in the Hong Kong context. The concepts and sub-concepts are compared to existing business literature for clarification of scopes. Empirical findings of the study suggest safety intervention needs to redirect its focus from promoting safety alone to addressing the institutional logics of the entire organization and its societal context practised by multiple levels of actors. We conclude that safety research would benefit from redirecting its focus of analysis from discourses, interviews or surveys to authenticated cases reconstructed through triangulation of actors’ discourses at multiple levels of an organization, third-party observation, physiological data and objective measurement of the work environment. Methodologically, this paper provides a detailed guidance for conducting grounded theory research with a focus of conceptualization.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161039