Root, D; Fellows, R F and Hancock, M (1997) Quantitative versus qualitative or positivism and interactionism: a reflection of ideology in the current methodological debate? Journal of Construction Procurement, 3(2), pp. 34-44. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
Currently, there is a debate within the construction management research community which appears to have polarized into a quantitative versus qualitative argument. This paper argues that debate at this level is superficial, because it concentrates on methods rather than methodologies and reflects a lack of appreciation by many researchers of the real issues that have been raised. Underlying the debate on methods is the real issue of the applicability of positivist and interactionist paradigms in construction management research. This paper further proposes that the academic issue of paradigms is at risk of being overshadowed by what can be portrayed as a conflict between two competing 'ideologies', a conflict that is a function of the construction management community rather than the construction management discipline. The paper concludes with an explanation of current research being carried out into culture which seeks to draw together different paradigms and overcome the positivist and interactionist positions which might encourage the development of such ideologies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ideology, paradigm, research method |
| Index terms: | management research, positivism, methodology, reflection, paradigm |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, philosophical concept, education and knowledge transfer, professional development, research methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTA |
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