<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01410nam a22001577a 4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">514611</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">514611</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">201123b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Lobo, Sunila. and Abid, Agha Farhan. </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">21235</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The role of social media in intra stakeholder strategies to influence decision making in a UK infrastructure megaproject: Crossrail 2</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Project Management Journal  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">51(1), 2020: p.96-119</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This article examines the role of social media in public stakeholder and intrastakeholder group strategies to influence decision making in the consultation stage of UK infrastructure megaprojects. The context is the consultation process on the construction of a new Crossrail 2 station in Chelsea, London, where there is resistance. Analysis of social media communication by the affected public groups and interviews with the opposing group shows different intragroup concerns, with stakeholders developing a strong identity enabled by social media. To reduce perceived lack of responsiveness, we recommend that project managers harness social media marketing principles for ongoing relationship building. &#x2013; Reproduced </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Consultation, Identity, Influence strategies, Infrastructure megaprojects, Intra Stakeholder groups, Legitimacy, Public stakeholders, Social media</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">19400</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Project Management Journal </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">388614</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2020-11-23</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">51(1), 2020: p.96-119</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR124091</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2020-11-23</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
