Räisänen, C and Stenberg, A C (2011) This paper is not in the conference template : The discourse of conference gatekeeping. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
This paper is a call for research in a neglected area of construction management, namely the quality assessment of submitted papers aka the review process. Using a text analytical lens, we examine two interrelated gatekeeping genres: the instruction to reviewers and reviewer comments in the ARCOM chain of genres. All the reviewer comments from one ARCOM conference have been collected and analysed. The findings of this study will provide some insights into the review process. Gatekeeping genres play a major role in the shaping of a discipline s epistemology, it is therefore important that they too be subjected to scrutiny. Since many of these texts are occluded they remain under-researched. This in turn limits possibilities for disciplinary reflexivity, which is where we see this paper s contribution.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | arcom; conference genre chain; disciplinary practice; discourse; instruction to reviewers; review reports |
| Index terms: | epistemology, conference, quality assessment, reflexivity |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, research paradigm research concept, research dissemination and communication, knowledge theory |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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