Hugill, D (1999) Negotiating access: Presenting a credible project. In: Hughes, W (ed.) Proceedings of 15th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1999, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
Each research project has its particular problems in identifying the data to be obtained, and the method(s) adopted in its collection. Social science research has its own particular difficulties, which can be exacerbated by the scientist’s desire for 'rigour'. In the quest for a phenomenological perspective requiring the detailed description of everyday experiences, the taking of audio and visual records is extremely valuable. Yet obtaining a contemporaneous account is fraught with difficulties, which the researcher must address if a meaningful project is to be accomplished. This paper describes the preliminary stages of an ongoing research project, where commercial and personal sensitivities were addressed in the pursuit of a detailed account of a project management team in the construction industry. The obtaining of 'access', the negotiations to accomplish the degree of intimacy required are described, including the author’s reflections on the presentation of the research in such a fashion that it is perceived as a credible undertaking by a collaborating industrial organization.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | audio record; industrial collaboration; phenomenology; research method |
| Index terms: | phenomenology, negotiation, construction industry, negotiating, reflection, collaboration, social science, project management team, industrial organization |
| Subjects: | profession, industry analysis, conflict resolution, professional development, methods and analysis, theoretical framing, management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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