Mustaffa, N E and Bowles, G (2005) Investigating the "hard" and "soft" issues of problem resolution in partnering: Defining the research boundaries. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
Partnering is an innovative procurement method that includes a problem resolution mechanism to resolve disputes as amicably as possible. This ongoing postgraduate research study proposes to build conceptual model(s) of problem resolution mechanism based on selected partnering project characteristics. A review of the debate surrounding different paradigms in built environment research highlights pertinent research issues relating to 'soft' and 'hard' aspects of partnering problem resolution. In so doing, it leads to a discussion on the combination of research strategies adopted to gather information for the research. Reports on interim findings of a questionnaire survey conducted to determine the extent to which problem resolution mechanisms are being applied are also incorporated. Follow up in-depth interviews are underway to gather information that cannot be elicited by questionnaire. It is suggested that the two different hard and soft issues should each be dealt with by a separate paradigm, and the boundaries in which the current research lies in terms of its paradigms are highlighted.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | partnering; research paradigm; methodology |
| Index terms: | survey, strategy, dispute, interview, procurement method, partnering, boundaries, built environment research, resolution, questionnaire, postgraduate, paradigm, methodology |
| Subjects: | management, education and knowledge transfer, research methods, higher education, conflict resolution, partnership management, research management, dispute resolution, data collection methods, property law, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Education, Legal Issues |
| 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