Gajendran, T; Brewer, G; Runeson, G and Dainty, A (2011) Investigating informality in construction: Philosophy, paradigm and practice. Construction Economics and Building, 11(2), pp. 84-98. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The complex interrelationships commonly enacted as a consequence of project team activity take a number of different forms, including those formally dictated by contract conditions. However it is becoming increasingly apparent that project performance is affected by informal relationships, though their investigation is notoriously difficult. This paper proposes that these difficulties arise partly from the nature of the informalities themselves, but also as a consequence of the philosophical position taken by researchers and their consequent methodological/paradigmatic posture, and its impact upon those being studied. It consequently proposes a subjectivist investigative framework that accommodates multiple philosophical points of departure, matching them to a range of alternative methodologies, and indicates the desirability of blending to reflect the peculiarities of each context under investigation. The framework also accommodates the practicalities of putting complex methodologies into action. The paper concludes that this framework presents opportunities to conduct rigorous in-situ investigations of informality at work, leading to authentic and deep insights that would otherwise remain unseen.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; informality; method; methodology |
| Index terms: | philosophy, project team, project performance, becoming, investigation, methodology, paradigm, in-situ, contract condition |
| Subjects: | building construction, project delivery, philosophical studies, philosophical process, research methods, contract structure, education and knowledge transfer, data collection methods, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| 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