Barrett, P S and Barrett, L C (2003) Research as a kaleidoscope on practice. Construction Management and Economics, 21(7), pp. 755-766. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Insufficient attention is paid to the relationship between research and practice in construction. Those in industry want straightforward guidance, but inhabit a complex socially constructed world. As a result, they are often disappointed with the contribution of research, either because it is too theoretical or because the simple solutions suggested do not work. However, researchers have a valuable contribution to make owing to their opportunity for reflection, and it is proposed that this can be viewed in three different ways: as 'microscopes', 'telescopes' or 'periscopes' on practice. Each of these views involves different epistemologies and methodologies, but combining the three approaches in a Kaleidoscopic Research Model will allow differences to thrive and synergies to be sought. Only then will an effective dialogue develop where research impacts solidly and continuously on the improvement of practice, while at the same time practice constantly challenges and refreshes research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | kaleidoscopic model; policy; practice; research; research typology |
| Index terms: | methodology, synergy, epistemology, reflection |
| Subjects: | professional development, research methods, partnership management, knowledge theory |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| 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