Seymour, D E and Rooke, J D (1998) Construction management research and the attempt to build a social science. Journal of Construction Procurement, 4(1), pp. 59-73. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
The paper challenges the view that the major theoretical and methodological issues in the social sciences have been resolved and that positivism provides the only sound basis for research in construction. By examining the relationship between specialist discourses and natural language and Weber's failure to provide a basis for objective causal explanations of social action, it is argued that the kind of theorising that Runeson advocates is at best premature and at worst preempts the achievement of a more rigorous and thorough understanding of construction processes. Reporting some empirical research on the design and construction of reinforced concrete structures, the paper seeks to demonstrate some theoretical methodological and practical implications of an interpretive style of research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concrete, research methodology, reinforcement, theory |
| Index terms: | research methodology, design and construction, social science, reinforcement, reinforced concrete, positivism, construction process, theorizing, management research |
| Subjects: | philosophical concept, data science, building materials, research design and methodology, building construction, theoretical framing, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Construction Materials, Research Practice, Site Management, Procurement |
| 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