Lansley, P R; Luck, R and Lupton, S (1995) The organization of construction research in British universities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2(3), pp. 179-195. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The paper provides details of the size and scope of construction research carried out in a number of architecture, civil engineering and building related departments in British universities. After considering the level of funding, the type of research projects undertaken and the resulting outputs, especially how these benefit industry, the paper focuses on the careers of academics and researchers and the way in which research is organized at university, departmental and team levels. Finally, the paper suggests that whilst the construction research community in universities has many strengths, there is a danger that in responding to recent opportunities it may overreach itself. The end result may be disappointing for all parties involved. Some of the factors which would contribute to an effective approach to the development of links between universities and industry are discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | academic performance; culture; research; university |
| Index terms: | career, funding, academic performance |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, assessment methods, professional development |
| Topics: | Education, Business Strategy, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
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