Ofori, G (1994) Establishing construction economics as an academic discipline. Construction Management and Economics, 12(4), pp. 295-306. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Despite the importance of construction in national economies and in socio-economic development, construction economics, as a field of study, is still fledgling. Its foundations are weak and there is confusion about many of its concepts and terms. Worse, there are indications that unless a conscious effort is made to advance the field further, progress will be slow. This paper considers the present state of construction economics and its causes and effects. It considers whether construction economics is a distinct academic discipline. It is observed that construction economics lacks a conceptual structure, a key attribute of a discipline. Main areas where further study is required are highlighted. It is suggested that the development of construction economics should be managed if the field is to be advanced further.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | academic discipline; competence; conceptual structure; economic theory; research; education |
| Index terms: | key attribute, construction economics, economic development, competence, foundations, national economy, economic theory |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, personnel development, economic analysis, financial analysis, economic development, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Human Resources, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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