McCabe, S (1997) Using suitable tools for researching what quality managers in construction organizations actually do. Journal of Construction Procurement, 3(2), pp. 72-87. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
A study into organizational change in construction firms as a result of the introduction of quality management is presented. The research focused on quality managers. The reasons for this, as well as the decision to adopt an ethnographic research approach, are described. Essentially, this is an account of a personal journey; it provides an assessment of the appropriateness, and more importantly, the inappropriateness of two broad research approaches available to those studying (quality) managers in construction. As such, it does not pretend to be an idealized version of what can, or should be achieved in every situation. Instead, by describing the problems encountered in this study, some useful 'food for thought' is provided for those embarking on similar endeavours.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ethnographic research, positivism, quality management, research methodology |
| Index terms: | construction organization, research methodology, quality management, organizational change, manager, construction firm, positivism |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, practitioner, organization, philosophical concept, research design and methodology, business |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PT |
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