Seymour, D and Rooke, J (1995) The culture of the industry and the culture of research. Construction Management and Economics, 13(6), pp. 511-523. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Culture is increasingly cited as being in need of change if the UK construction industry is to improve its efficiency and productivity. The paper argues that the concept of culture is amenable to radically different treatments and that the research community must recognize the consequences of this choice if it is to make a useful contribution to bringing about the desired change. The dominant research paradigm in construction management is examined and compared to an alternative approach. The consequences attendant upon the choice between these two are explored with reference to four phenomena: a study of quality in the construction industry, Japanese innovation in management, Deming's concept of total quality management and the situation of the site engineer. It is concluded that the dominant rationalist paradigm tacitly endorses existing attitudes and that if researchers are to have a role in changing the culture of the industry, then the culture of research must change also.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | culture; methodology; quality; research paradigms |
| Index terms: | paradigm, construction industry, efficiency, engineer, productivity, methodology, total quality management |
| Subjects: | evaluation methods, profession, industry analysis, management, education and knowledge transfer, research methods, performance management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| 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