Green, S D and Schweber, L (2008) Theorizing in the context of professional practice: The case for middle-range theories. Building Research & Information, 36(6), pp. 649-654. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This commentary seeks to complement the contribution of the Building Research and Information special issue on 'Developing Theories for the Built Environment' (2008) by highlighting the important role of middle-range theories within the context of professional practice. Middle-range theories provide a form of theorizing that lies between abstract grand theorizing and atheoretical local descriptions. They are also characterized by the way in which they directly engage with the concerns of practitioners. In the context of professional practice, any commitment to theorizing should habitually be combined with an equivalent commitment to empirical research; rarely is it appropriate to neglect one in favour of the other. Any understanding of the role that theory plays in professional practice must further be informed by Schon's seminal ideas on reflective practice. Practitioners are seen to utilize theories as inputs to a process of continuous reflection, thereby guarding against complacency and routinization. The authors would challenge any assumption that academics alone are responsible for generating theories, thereby limiting the role of practitioners to their application. Such a dichotomized view is contrary to established ideas on Mode 2 knowledge production and current trends towards co-production research in the context of the built environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; co-production research; knowledge production; middle-range theory; reflective practice |
| Index terms: | professional practice, reflection, co-production, built environment, practitioner, commitment, building research, theorizing, reflective practice |
| Subjects: | research management, infrastructure and transport systems, professional development, psychology, data science, innovation studies, practitioner |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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