Yates, J K (1990) Data-base systems for evaluating construction programs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(4), pp. 624-642. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Computerized relational data-base systems are developed containing quantifiable data on undergraduate-and graduate-level constrution engineering and management programs. This paper introduces the results of the construction database system study, including data contained in the data-base systems, uses for the data, benefits of the systems, and a comparison of the undergraduate and graduate construction data-base systems. The contents of the data bases are collected by extracting information from university and college catalogs, and from an extensive survey of construction programs. The data contained in the files, developed as part of the research, are analyzed to ascertain whether any patterns or trends could be detected. The results of this investigation are presented and a discussion on construction program requirements is used to illustrate the diversity of construction programs available at colleges and universities in the United States. The final product of this research effort is a computerized data-base program called Collegiate Programs in Construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | program, United States, survey, undergraduate, investigation, database |
| Subjects: | curriculum development, data collection methods, data management, Geography, software systems |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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