Popescu, C (1987) Construction engineering graduate education survey. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(4), pp. 664-668. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In order to ensure that graduate-level construction engineering project-management education programs best serve the needs of the construction industry, it is deemed essential that a continuing dialogue between university professors and practitioners be maintained. Based upon three surveys conducted among the top 400 contractors as listed by ENR 1978, 1982, and 1984, six-year trends in educational needs are covered. They represent the shifting in the priorities among graduate courses and show the reflection of the evaluation of construction management in the USA. Construction industry expectations should be translated at the university level into a variety of new regular courses offered by various programs in the country. Short courses for practitioners should be offered by both universities or professional societies to complement their college education.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction industry, reflection, construction engineering, program, practitioner, graduate education, survey, society |
| Subjects: | higher education, industry analysis, communities and social development, engineering methods, software systems, professional development, data collection methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Education, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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