Consoli, G G S (2004) Conducting an ethno-methodological study for the comparison of private and public prison delivery processes in Australia. Journal of Construction Procurement, 10(1),
Abstract
Research within the hostile political environment of prison privatisation and prison procurement highlighted the complex interrelationships between the private prison industry, architectural profession and government Public Works and Corrective Services/Justice agencies. The study showed that processes undertaken in highly sensitive projects such as prisons may be unrecordable and unobservable. The study shows a purely qualitative research method is a valid means to investigate the interdependency between the main themes and areas of investigation. Although building construction research, even in regards to management theories and cultural relationships, show a preference for empirical studies. An examination of working practices and influences and outcomes were heavily weighted in quantitative research. The nature of the study showed that the research method could not reduce the problem to a quantification of the beliefs and stances. This paper defines a methodology that captures an appreciation of the ambiguity and unpredictability of the complexity of the networks amongst participants, the sensitivities of prison privatisation, and the impact of such relationships upon the entire prison planning, design and construction processes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | research methodology, prison design and construction, qualitative research, design-build, build-own-operate-transfer, design-build-finance-operate |
| Index terms: | management theory, qualitative research, methodology, design-build-finance-operate, complexity, agency, preference, prison, justice, qualitative research method, building construction, investigation, research methodology, design and construction, profession, empirical study, public work, privatization, quantitative research, quantification, Australia, build-own-operate-transfer, working practice |
| Subjects: | management, sociology, measurement and scaling, administrative law, systems engineering, data collection methods, research design and methodology, data analysis and analytics, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, Geography, infrastructure engineering, building construction, institututions, legal systems, contractual arrangements, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Procurement, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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