Brooker, P and Lavers, A (1997) Perceptions of alternative dispute resolution as constraints upon its use in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 15(6), pp. 519-526. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Attitudes to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) among contractors and subcontractors/specialists in the UK construction industry are analysed on the basis of an extensive survey. Positive attitudes contrasted ADR with litigation and arbitration in terms of cost, delay and damage to working relationships through confrontation. The study also examined negative perceptions of ADR which may reduce its appeal and explain its limited use to date. These include a fear that lawyers may 'colonize' ADR and that its non-binding quality may prove a deficiency. It is concluded that these perceptions will be influential in determining the extent to which ADR is used in construction disputes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adr; alternative dispute resolution; arbitration; construction disputes; dispute resolution; litigation; resolution |
| Index terms: | resolution, construction industry, arbitration, construction dispute, dispute, litigation, alternative dispute resolution, subcontractor, lawyer, survey |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, practitioner, profession, data collection methods, industry analysis, conflict resolution, contract management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PTE |
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