Search

In his comment on Seymour, D.E., Crook, D.J. and Rook; J.A. (1997) Construction Management and Economics, 15, 117-19 (Construction Management and Economics, 15, 299-302) argues that positivism provides the best insurance against bad research in construction management studies. He claims that positivist methods of theory building have been modified sufficiently to cope with the demands of management research. He accuses Seymour et al. of being anti-scientific in questioning the viability of these methods. In this short reply, we refute these assertions, pointing out some remaining obstacles to the application of positivist methods to management research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Raftery, J., McGeorge, D. and Walters, M. (1977) Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 291-297, criticise Seymour, D.E. and Rooke, J.A. (1995) Construction Management and Economics 13(6), 511-523 for setting out battle lines in their use of the terms rationalist and interpretive paradigms and argue that such dichotomies lead to a degeneration in research standards. Sharing their concern for research standards, in reply, we argue that Raftery et al.'s plea for methodological liberalism will itself undermine standards. Different research methods are required for different research purposes and are to be evaluated according to different criteria. These criteria must be made explicit. We state our own research purposes and make an initial attempt to set out some criteria against which we would wish our own research to be judged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Culture is increasingly cited as being in need of change if the UK construction industry is to improve its efficiency and productivity. The paper argues that the concept of culture is amenable to radically different treatments and that the research community must recognize the consequences of this choice if it is to make a useful contribution to bringing about the desired change. The dominant research paradigm in construction management is examined and compared to an alternative approach. The consequences attendant upon the choice between these two are explored with reference to four phenomena: a study of quality in the construction industry, Japanese innovation in management, Deming's concept of total quality management and the situation of the site engineer. It is concluded that the dominant rationalist paradigm tacitly endorses existing attitudes and that if researchers are to have a role in changing the culture of the industry, then the culture of research must change also. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We raise a number of questions concerning the theoretical basis of construction management, and enquire into the nature of construction management theory. We highlight the dominant research paradigm in construction management, and call for attention to be paid to alternative research paradigms. We call for a scholarly debate to investigate these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]