Seymour, D; Mahroof, A; Rooke, J and Crook, D (1997) Objectivity in research: Negotiating a research and development role in an urban renewal department. In: Stephenson, P (ed.) Proceedings of 13th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1997, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
We describe efforts to negotiate a research role which, according to conventional standards, risks compromising objectivity because the researcher is required to play an organizational role. Given the particular nature of social research, an alternative conception of objectivity is proposed and a method for resolving the objectivity/ usefulness tension is outlined.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | objectivity; research methodology; social research |
| Index terms: | research and development, research methodology, negotiating, urban renewal |
| Subjects: | post-disaster and reconstruction, conflict resolution, research management, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 P |
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