Issues of Interpretation and Understanding: Social Semiotic Framework to Inform Teaching of Civil Engineering and Project Communications
Publication: Journal of Civil Engineering Education
Volume 150, Issue 2
Abstract
Civil engineers and project managers must control and manage the project management discourse with the client and other stakeholders or risk slippages to time, cost, and programs. This paper explores how communicative choices and the representation of project requirements and engineering issues are intrinsic to effective civil engineering work. Using a social semiotic framework, the paper contributes to civil engineering learning by revealing how various engineering communications (e.g., schematic drawings, visual images) function in civil engineering contexts. The research builds upon civil engineering communication scholarship, highlighting the significance of representational choices for affecting engineering work. The social semiotic and multimodal-informed analysis clarifies processes of cognition, interpretation, and understanding at play when civil engineers interact with project stakeholders. The findings inform civil engineering education and the teaching of communication skills: communication composition being intrinsic to effective civil engineering work.
Practical Applications
The paper presents a framework for assisting and guiding civil engineers and project management professionals in the formulation and review of communicative resources (e.g., visual images; drawings, schematics) used in civil engineering and project management work. The social semiotic framework, validated through case study evidence from a hospital construction project, informs the teaching of civil engineering communication skills: communicative choices and the representation of project requirements and engineering issues being intrinsic to several aspects of civil engineering work, including risk management, stakeholder engagement, and planning and control. The theoretical insights address the role of authors and readers of sign communications in civil engineering work and clarify the processes of cognition and interpretation at play when engineers interact with other professionals and project stakeholders with various communicative resources. The paper adds to the body of knowledge concerning communication in civil engineering contexts and informs the teaching of communication skills for professional civil engineers.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
ACCE (American Council for Construction Education). 2021. “American Council for Construction Education document 104 standards and criteria for accreditation with commentary.” Accessed May 30, 2022. https://www.acce-hq.org/file-share/430b0bae-4bca-49b9-ac41-be9945a81d1e.
APM (Association for Project Management). 2019. Body of knowledge. 7th ed. Princes Risborough, UK: APM.
ASCE. 2019. Civil engineering body of knowledge. Preparing the future civil engineer. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Barner, M. S., and S. A. Brown. 2021. “Design codes in structural engineering practice and education.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 147 (2): 04020013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000026.
Barthes, R. 1967. Elements of semiology. New York: Hill and Wang.
Barthes, R. 1977. “The rhetoric of the image.” In Image, music, text, edited by R. Barthes, 192–205. London: Fontana.
Barthes, R. 1968. “The death of the author.” In Image, music, text, edited by R. Barthes, 142–148. London: Fontana.
Barthes, R. 1979. “The Eiffel Tower.” In The Eiffel Tower and other mythologies, edited by R. Howard, 3–17. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bateman, J. A. 2014. Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Bateman, J. A., and J. Wildfeur. 2014. “A multimodal discourse theory of visual narrative.” J. Pragmatics 74 (Aug): 180–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.001.
Bogers, T., J. J. van Meel, and T. J. M. van der Voordt. 2008. “Architects about briefing.” Facilities 26 (3–4): 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770810849454.
Boxenbaum, E., C. Jones, R. E. Meyer, and S. Svejenova. 2018. “Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies.” Organ. Stud. 39 (5–6): 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618772611.
Chiu, M. L. 2002. “An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration.” Des. Stud. 23 (2): 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00019-9.
CIOB (Chartered Institute of Building). 2018. “CIOB education framework for undergraduate studies.” Accessed May 30, 2022. https://www.ciob.org/learning-providers/education-framework.
CIOB (Chartered Institute of Building). 2022. Code of practice for project management for the built environment. 6th ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cobley, P. 2010. The Routledge companion to semiotics. London: Routledge.
Collinge, W. H. 2015. “Infection control in construction and design.” Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 8 (3): 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715577369.
Collinge, W. H. 2017. “Client requirement representations and transformations in construction project design.” J. Eng. Des. Technol. 15 (2): 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-03-2016-0022.
Collinge, W. H. 2019. “Exploring construction project design as multimodal social semiotic practice.” Social Semiotics 29 (5): 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1500511.
Collinge, W. H., and C. F. Harty. 2014. “Stakeholder interpretations of design: Semiotic insights into the briefing process.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 32 (7–8): 760–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.894247.
Danesi, M. 2010. “Semiotics of media and culture.” In The Routledge companion to semiotics, edited by P. Cobley, 135–149. London: Routledge.
Datta, A., J. Ninan, and S. Sankaran. 2020. “4D visualization to bridge the knowing-doing gap in megaprojects: An Australian case study.” Constr. Econ. Build. 20 (4): 25–41. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i4.7015.
Eco, U. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Emmitt, S., and C. Gorse. 2007. Communication in construction teams. Oxon, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Froehle, K., L. Dickman, A. R. Phillips, and H. Murzi. 2022. “Understanding lifelong learning and skills development: Lessons learned from practicing civil engineers.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 148 (4): 04022007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000068.
Gluch, P., and C. Raisanen. 2009. “Interactional perspective on environmental communication in construction projects.” Build. Res. Inf. 37 (2): 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210802632849.
Harrison, C. 2003. “Visual social semiotics: Understanding how still images make meaning.” Tech. Commun. 50 (1): 46–60.
Hiippala, T. 2015. The structure of multimodal documents: An empirical approach (Routledge studies in multimodality). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hiippala, T. 2017. “An overview of research within the genre and multimodality framework.” Discourse Context Media 20 (Aug): 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.05.004.
ICE (Institute of Civil Engineers). 2020. Civil engineering procedure. 8th ed. London: ICE.
Jewitt, C., J. J. Bezemer, and K. L. O’Halloran. 2016. Introducing multimodality. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Jewitt, C., and G. R. Kress. 2003. “A multimodal approach to research in education.” In Language, literacy and education: A reader, edited by S. Goodman, T. Lillis, J. Maybin, and N. Mercer, 277–292. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Open Univ.
Jewitt, C., and R. Oyama. 2001. “Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach.” In Handbook of visual analysis, edited by T. van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt, 134–156. London: SAGE.
Kress, G. R. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. R., and T. N. van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Lloyd, P., and J. Busby. 2001. “Softening up the facts: Engineers in design meetings.” Des. Issues 17 (3): 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357213.
Markus, T. A., and D. Cameron. 2002. The words between the spaces: Buildings and language. London: Routledge.
Medway, P. 1996. “Writing, speaking, drawing: The distribution of meaning in architect’s communication.” In The new writing environment, edited by M. Sharples and T. van der Geest, 25–42. London: Springer.
Medway, P., and B. Clark. 2003. “Imagining the building: Architectural design as semiotic construction.” Des. Stud. 24 (3): 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00055-8.
Ninan, J., A. Mahalingam, S. Clegg, and S. Sankaran. 2020. “ICT for external stakeholder management: Sociomateriality from a power perspective.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 38 (9): 840–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1755047.
Penn, G. 2000. “Semiotic analysis of still images.” In Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 227–245. London: SAGE.
Pourmand, P., B. Pudasaini, and M. Shahandashti. 2021. “Assessing the benefits of flipped classroom in enhancing construction students’ technical communication skills.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 147 (1): 04020010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000025.
Pradhananga, P., M. ElZomor, and G. S. Kasabdji. 2022. “Advancing minority STEM students’ communication and presentation skills through cocurricular training activities.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 148 (2): 04022001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000060.
Prior, L. 1997. “Following in Foucault’s footsteps: Text and context in qualitative research.” In Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, edited by D. Silverman, 63–79. London: SAGE.
Rapoport, A. 1990. The meaning of the built environment. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Ravelli, L. J., and R. J. McMurtrie. 2016. Multimodality in the built environment. London: Routledge.
Simpson, Z. 2014. “Resources, representation, and regulation in civil engineering drawing: An autoethnographic perspective.” In Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Simpson, Z., and A. Archer. 2018. “Semiotic technologies: A case study of discipline-based practices and pedagogy.” Social Semiotic 29 (4): 524–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1487263.
Turkulainen, V., K. Aaltonen, and P. Lohikoski. 2015. “Managing project stakeholder communication: The Qstock festival case.” Project Manage. J. 46 (6): 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21547.
Van Leeuwen, T. N. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Veltri, G. A. 2015. “Social semiotics and social representations.” In The Cambridge handbook of social representations, edited by G. Sammut, E. Andreouli, G. Gaskell, and J. Valsiner, 234–249. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Winch, G. M., and J. Kelsey. 2005. “What do construction planners do?” Int. J. Project Manage. 23 (2): 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.002.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Civil Engineering Education
Volume 150 • Issue 2 • April 2024
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 11, 2022
Accepted: Aug 4, 2023
Published online: Nov 16, 2023
Published in print: Apr 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Apr 16, 2024
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Business management
- Client relationships
- Construction costs
- Construction engineering
- Construction management
- Disaster risk management
- Education
- Engineering education
- Engineering profession
- Managers
- Personnel (type)
- Personnel management
- Practice and Profession
- Professional development
- Project management
- Risk management
- Social factors
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.