Holt, G D; Goulding, J and Akintoye, A (2014) Interrelationships between theory and research impact: Views from a survey of UK academics. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 21(6), pp. 674-696. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - Of late within the UK, government funded research has emphasised “impact” as a prerequisite for financial support, while the Research Excellence Framework (REF) now also includes impact as an assessment criterion. The purpose of this paper is to investigate perceptions of the construction management research (CMR) community on “impact”, especially, in relation to its possible future interrelationships with theory generation and development, research design and research outputs. Design/methodology/approach - A mixed methods design employs a structured questionnaire survey of CMR academics to collect numeric (scaled) and qualitative (narrative) data. These are analysed using graphical, descriptive statistical and informal content analysis techniques to examine perceptions and inference. Findings - There is a self-reported high understanding of impact and theory as separate concepts, but variance among perceptions as to their interrelationships. In addition, there is greater acceptance of the role of impact relating to research grants, but less so in relation to the REF. Respondents were ambivalent regarding possible effects, that an increasing emphasis on impact may have for the future. There was “slight agreement” that impact was good for CMR and, that existing theory must always be considered in research design. Research limitations/implications - The contribution of this study adds empirical evidence to the ongoing debate regarding the “emerging” role of research impact within the UK; to some extent generally, and with respect to the CMR community more specifically. Originality/value - The empirical findings are entirely novel.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; academic views; impact; research design; theory |
| Index terms: | management research, research output, survey, content analysis, evidence, questionnaire, academic view, narrative, methodology, mixed method, variance, research design |
| Subjects: | sociology, measurement and scaling, research methods, qualitative and interpretive research, research products and data, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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