Loosemore, M (1999) A grounded theory of construction crisis management. Construction Management and Economics, 17(1), pp. 9-19. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Construction crisis management research is in an exploratory state where contemplated questions are of more value than hasty answers. For this reason, this paper is more concerned with theory formulation than theory testing. More specifically, it derives a grounded theory of construction crisis management which forms a useful basis for future research. It does so from an investigation of the complex patterns of communication and behaviour which emerge in response to construction crises. The conclusion is that construction crisis management is about the effective control of social and behavioural instability and the conflict which arises out of it. However, effective crisis management is made difficult by the in-built defence mechanisms which construction crises appear to have. The grounded theory also is contrasted with current crisis management theory and thereby, the uniqueness of crisis management in a construction context is identified.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behaviour; conflict; crisis management; grounded theory; power; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | grounded theory, investigation, crisis management, testing |
| Subjects: | financial risk, theoretical framing, professional practice, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PA |
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