Parida, S and Brown, K (2018) Investigating systematic review for multi-disciplinary research in the built environment. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(1), pp. 78-90. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which a systematic review approach is transferable from medicine to multi-disciplinary studies in the built environment research. Design/methodology/approach Primarily a review paper, it focuses on specific steps in the systematic review to clarify and elaborate the elements for adapting an evidence base in the built environment studies particular to the impact of green building on employees' health, well-being and productivity. Findings While research represents a potentially powerful means of reducing the gap between research and practice by applying tried and tested methods, the methodological rigour is debatable when a traditional systematic review approach is applied in the built environment studies involving multi-disciplinary research. Research limitations/implications The foundational contribution of this paper lies in providing methodological guidance and an alternative framework to advance the longstanding efforts in the built environment to bridge the practitioner and academic divide. Originality/value A systematic review approach in the built environment is rare. The method is unique in multi-disciplinary studies especially in green building studies. This paper adopts the systematic review protocols in this cross-disciplinary study involving health, management and built environment expertise.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | systematic review; evidence-based practice; green building; academic-practitioner divide; green offices; multi-disciplinary research |
| Index terms: | built environment, academic-practitioner divide, medicine, well-being, evidence-based practice, systematic literature review, green office, green building, productivity, evidence, methodology, built environment research, practitioner |
| Subjects: | research methods, sociology, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, management, professional development, research management, medical science and clinical practice, mental health and wellbeing, design practice, infrastructure and transport systems, research evaluation and metrics |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Information Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Health and Safety, 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