The legal dwelling: how Norwegian research engineers domesticate construction law

Abstract

The considerable amount of energy spent on the construction, maintenance, and demolition of buildings draws attention to sustainable development in the construction sector. Regarded as both tools and frameworks, laws are expected to sustain and speed technological innovation. With the STS (Science and Technology Studies) theory of domestication and in-depth interviews with building researchers studying zero emission buildings in Norway, I discuss the role of research engineers in the domestication of law, that is, the translation of European Directives for building codes and technical requirements, and the mediation of these legal frameworks for industry and practitioners. I classify two main and opposing ways of domesticating the law in ‘inside-the-box’ and ‘outside-the-box’ approaches. The domestication of law accounts for numerous aspects and thus simultaneously becomes a technological, cultural, political and legislative activity. The paper contributes to a better understanding of the legislative roles of research engineers.

Keywords:

• research engineers
• low-energy building
• construction law
• domestication

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Norwegian Research Council and the ZEB for their support.

Notes

¹Russell, “Industrial Legislatures,” 2009, pp. 662–664.

²Russell, “Modularity,” 2012.

³Russell, Open Standards and the Digital Age, 2014.

⁴Slaton, Reinforced Concrete and the Modernization of American Building, 2001, pp. 65–66.

⁵Vinsel, “Federal Regulatory Management of the Automobile,” 2011, p. 8.

⁶Busch, Standards, 2011.

⁷Bowker and Star, Sorting Things Out, 2000.

⁸Metcalfe and Miles, “Standards, Selection and Variety,” 1994.

⁹Krislov, “How Nations Choose Product Standards,” 1997.

¹⁰Slaton and Abbate, “Hidden Life of Standards,” 2001.

¹¹Hughes, Networks of Power, 1983.

¹²Brunsson and Jacobsson, World of Standards, 2002.

¹³Krislov, How Nations Choose Product Standards, 1997, pp. 29, 137.

¹⁴Russell, “Modularity,” 2012, pp. 260, 268, 280.

¹⁵Slaton, Reinforced Concrete, 2001, pp. 188–193.

¹⁶Hojem and Lagesen, “Doing Environmental Concerns in Consulting Engineering,” 2011.

¹⁷Solli, “Navigating Standards,” 2013.

¹⁸Sintef, About Us, 2014.

¹⁹ZEB, About The Research Center on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB), 2014.

²⁰ZEB, About The Research Center on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB), 2014.

²¹Law, Manager and His Powers, 1997, p. 6.

²²Guy and Shove, Sociology of Energy, Buildings and the Environment, 2000.

²³Guy and Shove, Sociology of Energy, Buildings and the Environment, 2000.

²⁴Müller and Berker, “Passive House at the Crossroads,” 2013.

²⁵See also Jacobsson, “Standardization and Expert Knowledge,” 2002.

²⁶Silverstone and Hirsch, Consuming Technologies, 1992.

²⁷Lie and Sørensen, Making Technologies Our Own? 1996.

²⁸Haddon, “Domestication Analysis, Objects of Study,” 2011.

²⁹Sørensen, “Domestication,” 2006.

³⁰Sørensen, Aune, and Halting, “Against Linearity,” 2000.

³¹Berker et al., Domestication of Media and Technology, 2006, p. 1.

³²Silverstone and Haddon, “Design and Domestication of ICTs,” 1996, p. 45.

³³Silverstone, “Domesticating Domestication,” 2006, p. 229.

³⁴Imrie, “Interrelationships Between Building Regulations and Architects’ Practices,” 2007.

³⁵Boligprodusentenes handlingsplan for passivhusnivå i 2020, 2010.

³⁶Hojem and Lagesen, “Doing Environmental Concerns,” 2011, p. 123.

³⁷Hojem and Lagesen, “Doing Environmental Concerns,” 2011, p. 123.

³⁸Solli, “Navigating Standards,” 2013, p. 213.

³⁹See also Bowker and Star, Sorting Things Out, 2000.

⁴⁰Metcalfe and Miles, “Standards, Selection and Variety,” 1994.

⁴¹Law, Manager and His Powers, 1996.

⁴²Solli, “Navigating Standards,” 2013.

⁴³For the power of organizations that develop and impose standards, see Russell, “Modularity,” 2012.

⁴⁴For ‘path dependency’, see David, “Clio and the economics of QWERTY,” 1985.

⁴⁵Hughes, Networks of Power, 1983.

⁴⁶Müller and Berker, “Passive House at the Crossroads,” 2013. Considering the concept of Passive House, there is a need for specifications. The concept is a performance-based standard; the requirements relate to the performance of the building and not to the way in which the dwelling should be built. However, advocates for performance-based requirements affirm that the performance expected from a Passive House makes some technological devices (e.g. a heat recovery ventilation system) prerequisites; thus, it is indirectly prescriptive.

⁴⁷Vinsel, “Federal Regulatory Management of the Automobile,” 2011, p. 8.

⁴⁸Metcalfe and Miles, “Standards, Selection and Variety,” 1994, p. 246.

⁴⁹Winch, “Zephyrs of Creative Destruction,” 1998, p. 271.

⁵⁰Slaton and Abbate, “Hidden Lives of Standards,” 2001, pp. 96, 136.

⁵¹Thyholt, “Varmeforsyning i lavenergiboliger i områder med fjernvarmekonsesjon,” 2006.

⁵²As an EEA member, Norway implements the Directive as if it were a full EU member state.

⁵³The declared reason for creating the EU is the need for a common market to avoid conflicts. The emphasis on energy efficiency is rather new.

⁵⁴For the possible inhibitory consequences of standards, see Krislov, How Nations Choose Product Standards and Standards Change Nations, 1997, p. 15.

⁵⁵Hogg and Terry, “Social Identity and Self-categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts,” 2000.

⁵⁶See also Guy and Shove, Sociology of Energy, Buildings and the Environment, 2000.

⁵⁷Bucciarelli, Designing Engineers, 1996.

⁵⁸Davis, Thinking Like an Engineer, 1998.

⁵⁹Vinck, Everyday Engineering, 2003.

⁶⁰Trevelyan, “Intertwined Threads of Work,” 2008.