Tales of the expected: investigating the rhetorical strategies of innovation champions

Innovation continues to be high on the agenda in construction. It is widely considered to be an essential prerequisite of improved performance both for the sector at large and for individual firms. Success stories dominate the parts of the academic literature that rely heavily on the recollections of key individuals. A complementary interpretation focuses on the way innovation champions in hindsight interpret, justify and legitimize the diffusion of innovations. Emphasis is put on the temporal dimension of interpretation and how this links to rhetorical strategies and impression management tactics. Rhetorical theories are drawn upon to analyse the accounts given by innovation champions in seven facilities management organizations. In particular, the three persuasive appeals in classic rhetoric are used to highlight the rhetorical justifications mobilized in the descriptions of what took place. The findings demonstrate the usefulness of rhetorical theories in complementing studies of innovation.

Tales of the unexpected: research discoveries that occurred by accident

Data from four experimental research projects are presented which have in common that unexpected results caused a change in direction of the research. A plant growth accelerator caused the appearance of white black bean aphids, a synthetic pyrethroid suspected of enhancing aphid reproduction proved to enhance plant growth, a chance conversation with a colleague initiated a search for fungal DNA in aphids, and the accidental invasion of aphid cultures by a parasitoid reversed the aphid population ranking of two Brussels sprout cultivars. This last result led to a whole series of studies on the plant odour preferences of emerging parasitoids which in turn revealed the unexpected phenomenon that chemical cues to the maternal host plant are left with the eggs at oviposition. It is pointed out that, too often, researchers fail to follow up unexpected results because they resist accepting flaws in their hypotheses; also that current application criteria for research funding make it hard to accommodate unexpected findings.