Rabeneck, A (2008) A sketch-plan for construction of built environment theory. Building Research & Information, 36(3), pp. 269-279. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Theory is needed to explain conflicts between the intrinsic conceptual frameworks of construction: that governing what to build? and that governing how to build? The conflicts throw up uncertainties to be addressed by the strategies of building. But theorizing about the built environment has tended to be partial, suffering from growing separation between building design, construction and use, and recently from legacy concepts inherited from modernism that result in sometimes dangerously uneven explanations. Limitations of some present theoretical approaches are explained. A hypothetical scheme, a sketch-plan for theoretical discourse, is proposed based on the human transactional basis of construction-demand, regulation, supply-broad enough to unite design, use and production, and to provide a platform for applied research. A methodological regime of instrumentalism is proposed to underpin research, encourage model-building, and ensure the usefulness of the theory for practice, without which it would not be worthwhile. The scheme of the discourse aims to provide a meeting ground for the conflicted conceptual frameworks of construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; conceptual frameworks; instrumentalism; prediction; schema; systems of inquiry; theory-building; usefulness |
| Index terms: | strategy, theorizing, platform, building design, conceptual framework, built environment, regulation |
| Subjects: | architectural design, data science, political science, infrastructure and transport systems, theoretical framing, management, digital design |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Governance, Design Practice, Digital Applications, 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