Cooper, I (1997) The UK's changing research base for construction. Building Research & Information, 25(5), pp. 268-300. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The impact of recent government policy. Factors are identified which may destabilize the capacity and capability of the UK construction R&D base. Recent government policy on construction R&D in the UK is presented as having been a contradictory amalgam involving, simultaneously, government intervention and disengagement. Confusingly, both parts of the policy appear to have been aimed at the same purpose - increasing the responsiveness of the sector's R&D activities to market forces. Given the noted reluctance of the UK's private sector to assume responsibility for such activities over the past two decades, there is little to suggest that this policy will prove successful. A more likely outcome, in the short to medium term at least, is that the speed and extent of apparent government retreat from funding could, in combination with other current changes, destabilize both the capacity and the capability of Britain's construction R&D base.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | privatization; public policy; R&D; research funding; research infrastructure; research policy; trends; UK |
| Index terms: | research funding, government policy, funding, public policy, privatization, research policy, private sector |
| Subjects: | research management, industry analysis, public policy, economic analysis, economic and policy analysis |
| Topics: | Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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