Agyekum-Mensah, G; Reid, A and Temitope, T A (2020) Methodological pluralism: Investigation into construction engineering and management research methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3): 04020006, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The quantitative methodological-based debate in the 1990s in construction engineering and management (CEM) research resulted in researchers considering alternative methodologies. However, a follow up study in 2007 established that CEM remained dominated by quantitative research, with only 8.4% of the studies surveyed exclusively using qualitative methods. A decade on, this remains a challenge, and an update is overdue. Hence, an investigation to establish the current position regarding methodological pluralism within CEM research was conducted. A total number of 4,166 articles spanning from 2000 to 2017 were examined from three reputable journals and a Tier 1 conference. The articles were categorized by the research methods used. Overwhelmingly, it was found there are acceptable multiepistemologies within CEM research, and there is a shift from a dominance of quantitative to an increased utilization of qualitative methodologies, and the use of mixed methodologies has shown hopeful progression. The demography of the data was also analyzed and discussed. It was concluded that there is an increasing acceptance of methodological pluralism, and CEM and its industry are on the verge of experiencing a competitive advantage, which could result in improved performances with utilization of balanced research methodologies (if applied appropriately).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; methodology; mixed methods; qualitative; quantitative; research methods |
| Index terms: | methodology, management research, demography, qualitative method, journal, construction engineering, investigation, research methodology, competitive advantage, quantitative research, mixed method, conference |
| Subjects: | market analysis, demography, research methods, engineering methods, data analysis and analytics, research design and methodology, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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