Ding, Z; Zheng, K and Tan, Y (2022) BIM research vs BIM practice: A bibliometric-qualitative analysis from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(9), pp. 3520-3546. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Understanding the frontier difference between building information modeling (BIM) research and practice is a top priority to guarantee the engineering significance and feasibility of academic achievements, yet such research gap has not been well-explored. The purpose of this paper is to provide an objective and accurate analysis of BIM knowledge using 551 published BIM-related papers and 68 documents of frontier BIM projects in China. Design/methodology/approach: This paper adopts the mixed method, combining the bibliometrics method with the qualitative method. Bibliometrics was used to analyze 551 BIM-related literatures from China with Citespace 5.0. Qualitative research was used to analyze 68 project documents from China with Nvivo. Finally, the analysis results are compared to obtain the final conclusion. Findings: The analysis results of the collected BIM-related papers, given by bibliometrics analysis, show that the subject categories of engineering, civil engineering, and construction and building technology, and 8 key research clusters are extremely important for development of BIM knowledge. The analysis results of the collected project documents, given by qualitative analysis, indicate that visualization, aided management, intelligent construction, simulation and analysis are the hot applications of BIM practice. Originality/value: Through comparison, certain research gaps between the research and practice community in China was identified, which are useful for identification of research trends and practice frontier in BIM community. This study offers useful and new insights to summarize the status quo of BIM and can be used as a reference to integrate future BIM developments.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bibliometrics; building information modeling; practice frontier; qualitative analysis; research trend |
| Index terms: | mixed method, building information modelling, academic achievement, construction and building technology, qualitative method, guarantee, visualization, China, qualitative analysis, bibliometrics, documents, qualitative research, methodology |
| Subjects: | digital engineering, research design and methodology, data collection methods, research methods, educational resources, design practice, contract structure, professional development, Geography, research evaluation and metrics, information systems |
| Topics: | Education, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Procurement, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here