Criteria for evaluating research: The unique adequacy requirement of methods

Rooke, J A and Kagioglou, M (2007) Criteria for evaluating research: The unique adequacy requirement of methods. Construction Management and Economics, 25(9), pp. 979-987. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

The Unique Adequacy requirement of methods (UA) is proposed as a means of evaluating research in construction management. UA addresses the problems stemming from the significance of conscious action in constituting human organization. These may be summarized as: first, that objectivity is a problematic concept in such studies; second, that the determination of meaning is their primary goal; and third, that formal procedures, whether as methods of research or explanation, have significant limitations. The UA requirement has two forms: the weak form demands that the researcher is competent in the research setting; the strong form, that research reports use only concepts originating within the research setting. The consequences of applying these criteria are explored with reference to recent research reports in construction management, including: a questionnaire survey of cultural difference; an exercise in grounded theorizing; a case study of the implementation of a quality management initiative. It is concluded that the UA requirement is a viable tool for evaluating and guiding research. Emphasis is placed on the importance of maintaining a principled distinction between empirical research and theory building.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: culture; grounded theory; methodology; research methods; total quality management
Index terms: theorizing, total quality management, theory building, survey, cultural difference, meaning, questionnaire, methodology, exercise, case study, grounded theory, quality management, implementation
Subjects: research methods, theoretical framing, quality assurance, cross-cultural studies, sociology, health behaviours and lifestyles, data collection methods, evaluation methods, data science, contractual arrangements
Topics: International Construction, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Procurement
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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