Mapping methodologies and mixing methods in construction management research

The evolution of methodological paradigms, the choice of methodologies and the selection of methods in construction management research has been subjected to increasing self- scrutiny by the research community in recent years. For example, allegations that a dominant 'rationalist' paradigm may have excluded certain insights and advances, have been accompanied by advocacy of the 'interpretive' paradigm to tap into the richness of the supposedly less-accessed qualitative aspects. Case studies of methodology development in three recent research projects in Hong Kong are presented in this paper. These are in the research domains of (i) construction time performance; (ii) procurement-related and other factors influencing construction project outcomes; and (iii) construction claims. It is concluded that appropriate balances between rationalist and interpretive approaches, as well as between quantitative and qualitative methodologies are generally useful in many construction management research projects. The relative importance of the various criteria that should govern such a methodological balance is also examined. For example, the nature of the available data, the objectives and envisaged outputs of the study and the capacities and resources of the researcher(s) themselves need to be assessed and incorporated in the choice of appropriate methodologies and the selection of specific research methods.