Ezulike, E I and Hoare, D J (1998) The need for education in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(2), pp. 144-149. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The relative merits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over conventional methods of dispute resolution, namely litigation and arbitration, is well documented, but as yet, the various ADR procedures currently available are not being extensively utilized within the construction industry in the UK. The purpose of the present paper was to discover from UK experts in dispute resolution why ADR has not become a more frequently used technique for resolving disputes in the UK construction industry, and to suggest ways in which this problem can be overcome. The findings indicate that there is a lack of understanding of the principles behind ADR and a lack of experience in dispute resolution in general. The findings strongly suggest that the lack of understanding and experience in ADR can best be overcome by educating and training. This should be carried out early on in the working lives of professionals by universities, professional institutions and specialist bodies such as the CEDR.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | alternative dispute resolution; dispute; education; training |
| Index terms: | alternative dispute resolution, resolution, construction industry, litigation, dispute, arbitration |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, contract management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PT |
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