Bresnen, M (2017) Being careful what we wish for? Challenges and opportunities afforded through engagement with business and management research. Construction Management and Economics, 35(1-2), pp. 24-34. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Despite the proliferation of work within construction management that draws upon management and organizational theory, two omissions stand out from the body of published work: the absence of any real debate about the values of rigour and relevance in research; and the under-use of dominant perspectives in business and management research (such as institutional theory) to frame construction management and organizational issues. Drawing specifically upon the ideas of institutional logics and institutional work, this paper explores the tensions, ironies and contradictions of the rigour-relevance debate; and the challenges and opportunities facing construction management research (CMR) and its institutions in furthering management and organizational research agendas. In doing so, attention is directed to the complex, contested and changing nature of the knowledge base within the business and management field; as well as key differences between that community of practice and CMR.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communities of practice; institutional theory; management knowledge; rigour-relevance |
| Index terms: | organizational theory, research agenda, knowledge base, drawing, organizational issue, institutional theory, institutional work, management research, institutional logic, communities of practice, management knowledge |
| Subjects: | business, professional development, theoretical framing, research design and methodology, information systems, knowledge management, research management, technical documentation, sociology |
| Topics: | Information Management, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Design Practice, 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