Cannon, J (1994) Lies and construction statistics. Construction Management and Economics, 12(4), pp. 307-313. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to raise the awareness of all those who use or have an interest in construction statistics of the need to ensure that available data correctly reflect their expectations and requirements. The paper is in four sections. It first examines the reasons for the recent rise in interest in construction statistics and the claim that industry’s needs for them fail to be met by existing public and private data. It goes on to illustrate the links between providers of information, processors and users of data. The third section focuses on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of statistics. The final section explains the steps which are being taken to ensure better communications between government statisticians responsible for producing construction data and users. This endeavour should foster a better understanding of each other’s requirements and, hence, a more satisfactory supply of data to all interested parties. The ultimate goal is a comprehensive body of statistics which can be readily adapted to reflect the development and changing circumstances of the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; data; statistics |
| Index terms: | statistics, construction industry, construction statistics |
| Subjects: | mathematical modelling, quantitative and statistical methods, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 TA |
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