Loosemore, M (1998) Social network analysis: Using a quantitative tool within an interpretative context to explore the management of construction crises. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(4), pp. 315-326. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
There is growing dissatisfaction with the static, reductionist, socially insensitive and unimaginative methods used in construction management research. The present paper challenges the emerging view that methods are strictly associated with philosophies, and in particular, that quantitative methods are at odds with interpretative aspirations. It does so by providing a practical example of social network analysis, a quantitative method which is sympathetic to these aspirations. The example is set within a crisis management context, and illustrates the dangers of using qualitative or quantitative methods in isolation. The present paper concludes by questioning the association of quantitative methods with causality and the production of universal models, and argues that both quantitative and qualitative methods have a role to play in understanding the complexity of people's changing social roles, positions and behaviours within construction organizations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behaviour; communication; crisis management; graph; methodology; social network |
| Index terms: | crisis management, construction organization, methodology, quantitative method, complexity, management research, social network, social network analysis, philosophy, qualitative method |
| Subjects: | sociology, philosophical studies, systems engineering, research methods, financial risk, data analysis and analytics, organization, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Cost Management, 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