Wang, L and Cheng, Y (2022) Exploring a comprehensive knowledge map for promoting safety management research in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(4), pp. 1678-1714. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to map the safety management research of construction industry by scientometric analysis, which can predict important highlights and future research directions of safety management research in the construction industry. As an important issue in the construction industry, safety management issues have been researched from different perspectives. Although previous studies make knowledge contributions to the safety management research of construction industry, there are still huge obstacles to distinguish the comprehensive knowledge map of safety management research in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: This study applies three scientometric analysis methods, collaboration network analysis, co-occurrence network analysis and cocitation network analysis, to the safety management research of construction industry. 5,406 articles were retrieved from the core collection database of the Web of Science. CiteSpace was used for constructing a comprehensive analysis framework to analyze and visualize the safety management research of construction industry. According to integrating the analysis results, a knowledge map for the safety management research of construction industry can be constructed. Findings: The analysis results revealed the academic communities, key research topics and knowledge body of safety management research in the construction industry. The evolution paths of safety management research in the construction industry were divided into three development stages: “construction safety management”, “multi-objective safety management” and “comprehensive safety management”. Five research directions were predicted on the future safety management research of construction industry, including (1) comprehensive assessment indicators system; (2) intelligent safety management; (3) cross-organization collaboration of safety management; (4) multilevel safety behavior perception and (5) comparative analysis of safety climate. Originality/value: The findings can reveal the overall status of safety management research in the construction industry and represent a high-quality knowledge body of safety management research in the construction industry that accurately reflects the comprehensive knowledge map on the safety management research of construction industry. The findings also predict important highlights and future research directions of safety management research in the construction industry, which will help researchers in the safety management research of construction industry for future collaboration and work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; evolution trend; knowledge map; safety management; scientometric analysis |
| Index terms: | comparative analysis, science, safety climate, safety management, construction safety, collaboration, evolution, methodology, safety behaviour, database, network analysis, construction industry |
| Subjects: | environmental health, industry analysis, occupational health and safety management, data management, health safety and environment, research methods, management, data analysis and analytics, environmental science, specialized education |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Research Practice, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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