Gormley-Gallagher, A.; Amezaga, J.; Shucksmith, J.; Savic, D.; Templeton, M.; McAdam, E. and Jeffrey, P. (2015) Briefing: Negotiating value at the research-practice interface in the water sector. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 168(1), pp. 8-11. ISSN 1751-4304
Abstract
Lessons from experiences of managing an engineering doctorate programme are delineated in this paper, with particular emphasis on the relationship between research and practice. The paper reports on applied, practice-oriented research at the UK's industrial doctoral centre for the water sector. A descriptive account of the negotiating value at the research-practice interface is presented based on decades of collective practice, during which the engineering doctorate model has matured and grown. Conclusions focus on recommendations pertaining to project management, knowledge transfer and the effective and consistent translation of academic and practitioner project details.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education & training; environment; project management |
| Index terms: | practitioner, project management, negotiating, programme, knowledge transfer, briefing |
| Subjects: | research dissemination and communication, scope management, conflict resolution, practitioner, project controls, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Time Control, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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