Search results

The study purpose is to outline a conceptual starting point for an empirical analysis of the characteristic epistemic conditions of the AEC industry today – in its wide, multidisciplinary, industrial sense. This approach addresses a fundamental insight concerning adding value, notably that an actor only can add value to a project if his knowledge contribution is successfully integrated with other actors.

This study conducts a conceptual analysis of the knowledge management practises in the contemporary Norwegian AEC industry. This analysis draws on the conceptual distinction between logic-in-use and a reconstructed logic, allowing us to distinguish an important commonality between the current approaches.

Currently, a formalisation of the working principles of the Norwegian Building industry appears to be lacking in both research and practise. Most research is directed towards improving the industry’s many practical challenges. The approach suggested here is a reconstruction of certain integrative aspects of current Industry’s logic-in-use, contributing towards the development of a foundational methodology of the AEC-industry as a unified knowledge space.

Several promising studies applying new information taxonomies have already been conducted (e.g. Skatland & Lohne, 2016; Skatland et al., 2018). All these indicate that the modal aspect of building information – whether a given unit of information represents a conceived necessity or a valuable possibility – has a significant effect on the entire project organisation.

There is value potential limited by the level of integration between different knowledge traditions/agencies within a project organisation. Reconstructing the integrative aspect of current logic-in-use will provide new insights that could be applied strategically in project knowledge management.

Little research is devoted to how salary allocation processes interfere with gender inequality in talent development in universities. Administrative data from a university indicated a substantial salary gap between men and women academics, which partially could be explained by the unequal distribution of men and women in the academic job levels after acquiring a PhD, from lecturer to full professor, with men being overrepresented in the higher job levels, as well as in the more senior positions within each job level. We demonstrated how a lack of transparency, consistency and accountability can disqualify apparent fair, merit-based salary decisions and result in biased gender differences in job and salary levels. This chapter reflects on how salary decisions matter for the recognition of talent and should be an integral part of talent management.

Many early-career researchers (ECR) are motivated by the prospect of creating knowledge that is useful, not just within but also beyond the academic community. Although research facilities, funders and academic journals praise this eagerness for societal impact, the path toward such contributions is by no means straightforward. In this essay, we address five common concerns faced by ECRs when they strive for societal impact. We discuss the opportunity costs associated with impact work, the fuzziness of current impact measurement, the challenge of incremental results, the actionability of research findings, and the risk of saying something wrong in public. We reflect on these concerns in light of our own experience with impact work and conclude by suggesting a “post-heroic” perspective on impact, whereby seemingly mundane activities are linked in a meaningful way.