Livesey, P V and Runeson, G (2018) Autoethnography and theory testing. Construction Economics and Building, 18(3), pp. 40-54. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
One of the problems in construction management research is how to harvest the living experience of people working in the profession. Surveys and interviews are the common methods, but they have obvious problems, not only with defining terminology and targeting the appropriate populations but also with the knowledge of the respondents and their willingness to reflect. Autoethnography, in its conventional form, overcomes most of these problems, but creates a new set of problems, particularly in terms of our ability to generalise and verify the results. What is argued here is that autoethnography can be applied analytically and rigorously so that it can be used for theory testing and theory building. The approach is illustrated by a case study, in which professional experience in the construction industry is integrated into the conventional scientific method.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | autoethnography; Delphi study; project management |
| Index terms: | construction industry, testing, theory building, harvest, project management, survey, interview, population, profession, Delphi method, case study, management research |
| Subjects: | land management, project management theory and practice, industry analysis, demography, institututions, research design and methodology, data collection methods, data science, professional practice |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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