Edwards, P J and Bowen, P A (1998) Risk and risk management in construction: towards more appropriate research techniques. Journal of Construction Procurement, 4(2), pp. 103-115. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
The period 1991-1997 has seen a sharp increase in survey-based opinion research aimed at investigating the risk perceptions and risk management practices of construction clients, professional consultants and contractors. The extent of knowledge gained does not appear to match the research effort and flaws in the research are evident. In this paper the nature and findings of sixteen survey-based research publications are reviewed, and their methodological weaknesses identified. The suitability of the opinion survey research method is questioned. Case studies, with their "rich data" potential, are suggested as a better alternative; and a more effective "soft systems" approach to research and practice in construction and project risk management is advocated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | risk management, project management, procurement, soft systems research |
| Index terms: | project management, risk management, construction client, project risk management, suitability, publication, risk perception, case study, survey |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, practitioner, environmental hazards, design criteria, risk assessment, research dissemination and communication, project management theory and practice, financial risk |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Design Practice, Research Practice, Information Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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