Sociology and construction management research: Issues, approaches and implications

Construction management research (CMR) tends to be dominated by positivistic and instrumentally oriented thinking, where underlying causes are sought to explain the 'nature' of the workings of the construction sector. But CMR is increasingly oriented towards understanding how people interact around multiple institutions, such as organisations, projects and professional bodies, and how they enact complex activities. Such research is, in fact, often underpinned by ideas from sociology. However, there is often a lack of explicit engagement with the sociological theories and methodologies from which such ideas are drawn. The problems with CMR’s positivistic hegemony have been voiced before (e.g. Bresnen & Marshall, 2001; Seymour et al., 1997a). Rather than add to this critique, this paper is an attempt to open up discussion around sociological theory and its implications for CMR. It does so by outlining two important debates within the social sciences; that between homo-sociologicus and homo-economicus, drawing on the work of Max Weber, and that between structure and agency, drawing on Anthony Giddens' notion of structuration. For both of these, the methodological and theoretical implications of mobilising them are discussed. Following this, both are used to discuss the role of the researcher when conducting and disseminating research, through the concepts of verstehen, reflexivity and the double hermeneutic. The conclusions argue that more engagement with sociological literature and approaches can only have positive effects for CMR. It would contribute in both continuing to extend the breadth of the CM literature, and further help to situate CM within the wider terrains of sociological and social science research.