Runeson, G and de Valence, G (2015) A critique of the methodology of building economics: Trust the theories. Construction Management and Economics, 33(2), pp. 117-125. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Ive’s most important contribution to good research was his promotion of existing theories and in particular, the use of the firm rather than the project, as the primary analytical unit. It is suggested that the current standard of research in building economics is poor, and that the failure to use existing theories shares a considerable responsibility for this problem. The predominance of poorly conceived and executed research has put us into a position where the conclusions of 80% of published research papers across the social sciences (which includes building economics) should probably be reversed because of poor methodology, research design and analysis. Peer review, rather than being one of the cornerstones of self-correcting science, is particularly problematic in building economics as it serves to isolate us from external monitoring. Replication, the second cornerstone of good science, has more or less disappeared from our journals as it’s not considered prestigious. The end result is that there is no real quality control at the same time as quantity has become increasingly important for resource allocations and academic positions, seriously overextending the system for publications. The only way back to good research is to stop experimenting with fashionable but unsound methodologies and return to tried and tested theories and methodologies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building economics; innovation; methodology; price determination; research practice |
| Index terms: | social science, monitoring, quality control, resource allocation, promotion, research design, price determination, critique, methodology, building economics, research practice, publication, peer-review, research paper, science, journal |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, research dissemination and communication, evaluation and assessment methods, control systems, specialized education, project delivery, resource management, research methods, tendering, theoretical framing, management, professional development, cost management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Information Management, Research Practice, Education, Site Management, Quality Management, Human Resources |
| 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