Gorse, C A; Emmitt, S; Lowis, M and Howarth, A (2000) A critical examination of methodologies for studying human communication in the construction industry. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
In the field of construction management there has been a small but growing interest in communication research. A problem faced by researchers embarking on this type of study is whether or not the research tools of the social scientist will remain successful when transferred to a new environment. The paper reviews some of the pioneering research projects and the methodologies used to study communication data from the construction process. Informed by the review, three pilot studies were undertaken to determine the suitability of some of the data collection methods for use within a specific environment. A matrix, identifying issues for consideration and the degree of negotiation and co-operation required to gain communication data from a prescribed context, is proposed to guide future research.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; negotiation; co-operation |
| Index terms: | construction process, methodology, human communication, negotiation, construction industry, suitability |
| Subjects: | human factors and perception, design criteria, industry analysis, conflict resolution, building construction, research methods |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Design 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