Voordijk, H (2009) Construction management and economics: The epistemology of a multidisciplinary design science. Construction Management and Economics, 27(8), pp. 713-720. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Research in the field of construction management and economics (CME) can be characterized as a multidisciplinary design science. Results from the sciences and humanities are necessary inputs for this field of research that deals with design, production and operation of the built environment. The output of CME research as multidisciplinary design science consists of three types of solution concepts: empirical generalizations based on statistical data analysis (technological laws), concepts that specify what to do, if a certain result is to be attained under given circumstances (functional rules), and insights in the interrelationship between design, production and operation of the built environment and social practice (socio-technological understanding). Scientific justification of these solution concepts is obtained through testing them in the specific context of the built environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design science; epistemology; knowledge production |
| Index terms: | science, design science research, data analysis, social practice, epistemology, testing, built environment |
| Subjects: | specialized education, knowledge theory, data analysis and analytics, professional practice, design practice, social theory, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Education, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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