Gorse, C A and Emmitt, S (2003) Investigating interpersonal communication during construction progress meetings: Challenges and opportunities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(4), pp. 234-244. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Progress meetings provide a central forum for requesting and exchanging the information necessary for the successful completion of construction projects. Although common to the majority of projects, little is known about the interaction between participants during these meetings. Reviews appropriateness of methodologies for the study of group interaction and discusses the problems encountered when piloting them. The review led to a focus on Bales' interaction process analysis (IPA) as an appropriate methodology for observing, analysing and interpreting social interaction in small groups. Pilot testing and subsequent use found the method to be reliable and robust. Bales' IPA was used to categorise and quantify communication acts of 30 site-based progress meetings. Results indicate that the management and design team interaction is subject to interaction norms: this is predominantly task-based, but subject to outbursts of emotional interaction, which was found to be very influential on the groups' behaviour.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; group work; research methods; social interaction; social progress |
| Index terms: | social progress, design team, construction project, methodology, norms, process analysis, testing, construction industry, interaction, social interaction |
| Subjects: | professional practice, research methods, management, production management, sociology, behavioral psychology, industry analysis, communities and social development |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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