I was asked an interesting question today: "In theory-testing research, which is common in our discipline of Construction Management, we try to find a theory from a mainstream discipline, and test it in CM to see whether it works. But, how does theory-building research work in an applied discipline like CM?"
Immediately, I was struggling with how to answer this. I knew what he meant, but my stumbling was around the notion that CM is an academic discipline! My view is that it is not a discipline in the sense that, say, economics or law are disciplines. University departments are often confused with academic disciplines, but the way a university is organised has little to do with the way that knowledge is organised. Construction management, like any study of management, is essentially an empirically-based study. In writing journal papers, it is not simply a question of the authors casting around for some kind of theory to test. I suggest that we do not start from theory. As an empirical field, we start from practice. Presumably, research in an empirical field begins with a question, not with a theory.
We looked at a random journal paper to help in understanding this. The opening of a paper should explain what the question is and why it is important. That is, after all, the purpose of an introduction. Then the literature review helps us to figure what "kind" of question it is. It is the nature of the question that informs the way that theory is used. The review of previous research will help the author/reader in understanding why the particular question from the introduction is typical of a general group of questions. In a well-written paper, the literature review will lead us to a conclusion that our question is an illustration of a particular theoretical view. Every question implies a theoretical position. The purpose of a literature review is (mostly) to tease out what various theoretical positions are being used in dealing with question of the type we are suggesting in the paper.
Questions are also connected to what kind of people ask the specific kind of question. This also takes us through specific strands of literature. Considering that questions arise from thought and action leads us to the idea that questions are based on observations of the world and, therefore, are essentially subjective. So the interesting thing is what are the qualifiers we need to put on a question to make clear the subjectivity of the questioner? I feel that it is acceptable if a question arises from a previous paper, especially since most papers cocnlude with limitations of the research and an indication of further research questions.
The key thing about the introduction is to identify whether there is a general phenomenon that the specific question of interest belongs to. That is why we cite literature in the introduction. It is not simply a question of proving that many people agree that it is a question! The random paper that we were looking at established, first, that a search on Google Scholar for one of the keywords provided 1.77 million results. That statement gave me sense of despair. If we insisted on the force of researcher-numbers to justify our questions, then progress would in the field would, perhaps, be both slow and dull. Knowledge is not a popularity contest! It doesn't matter how many people have mentioned a word in documents scanned by Google. If it did matter, then we would need to analyse the metrics, the algorithms and the alternatives for counting the number of incidence of the word on the internet. But that is an entirely different kind of study. It is not unimportant, but it had nothing to do with the question in the paper we looked at.
My advice was that the introduction does not need to justify the question by proving that a large number of people want to know the answer. Rather, it should show that the author's question is interesting and important, with a clear idea about what kind of question it is and what kind of theoretical position is implied by this kind of question. That sets the scene for the literature review that categorises and explores groups of papers that are themed around theoretical positions and types of question. It is not "testing the theory to see whether it works in construction". It is using a theoretical lens to study the specifics of an interesting question.
So, how does theory development work in an applied discipline like CM? The simple answer is that it works the same as in any other body of scientific literature! All theories are provisional and open to challenge. Science is known as a "provisional consensus that is always open to question". This is fundamentally about rationality, rather than quantification.
Susbequently, I was asked whether I could provide examples to show what good practice looks like in relation to the opening sections of a paper. So, I had a quick loook in the ARCOM CM Abstracts database and picked up a couple of papers:
- Emuze, F (2020) Factors causing fatigue and safety-related errors on Construction Sites In Bloemfontein. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (Eds.), Proceedings 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 215-224.
- Henjewele, C, Sun, M and Fewings, P (2008) Uncertainties and the challenge of long-term value for money in the delivery of PFI projects. In: Dainty, A (Ed.), Proceedings 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 1, 227–36.
(If you want to follow this, please click on each paper and open them in a separate window.)
To begin with the paper by Emuze: The opening sentence of the introduction is excellent, Fatigue is a feeling of mental and physical exhaustion that leads to the inability to perform work effectively. The reason that I like this sentence so much is that it clearly locates the research topic and question within the experience of any reader. We all understand this. No references are required for stating something that is widely understood. Wisely, the authors gives none. We immediately know what the papers is going to be about. You might argue that the title tells us this, too. But as someone who has read thousands of journal and conference papers, I am tired of paper titles that do not match the paper! So this opening sentence gives me a great deal of confidence that I am safe hands with this author. The next two sentences each have a reference to research that has been carried out into such issues. This is immediately persuasive that the topic of Emuzi's paper isrecognised as important and relevant. Moreover, these references are to journals like Occupational Medicine and ournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Again, this gives me confidence in the researcher's grasp of the topic. He is not trying to re-invent all of human knowledge from first principles becaause he is clearly aware that what is true for people in general must also be true for specific sub-groups of people, such as those in the construction sector. This is good. The first three paragraphs of the introduction identify the question and its importance, as well as the kind of science being used. This is all that is needed from an introduction. I especially like the use of reasoning at this point of the paper, rather then strongs of authors' names at the end of each sentence. If this were a journal paper, rather than a conference paper, the final two paragraphs of the introduction would be the beginning of the literature review section. I am not complaining about where the headings appear, of course. What matters if the sequence and flow of ideas. With the restrictions on the length of ARCOM Conference papers, reporting new research or research in progress requires the focus to be on methods, data and findings. So the last two paragraphs of the introduction satisfactorily explain the underlying concepts that are to be used in the research. What I like about the beginning of this paper is that we very quickly get the picture about the topic, its importance in the world, the specifics of data collection in relation to geography and industry sector, and the scientific basis on occupational health and its impact on errors and mistakes.
In the paper by Henjewele: Again, the opening sentence does a great job of making absolutely clear what this paper is about: PFI advocates itself as government’s best mechanism through which the public sector gets a high degree of certainty in long-term value for money (vfm) objectives in collaboration with the private sector through sharing of competencies and transfer of risks. It includes a reference to a UK Government document from HM Treasury (although, frustratingly, with an acronym of HMT, and with an incomlpete reference in the list of references). The remainder of the first paragraph uses reasoning, rather than references, to develop the argument that underpins the paper, which is really nicely done. The next three sections each have their own heading and together build up the concepts that are used in the research in way that makes sense and leads directly to a section on methods (although not methodology, as the heading indicates; see "What is the difference between method and methodology").
Both of these papers illustrate how to make clear the linkage between question, concepts and methods. They both show what "kind" of question they are dealing with. They are good examples of how the authors make conscious choices about what kind of question they are dealing with. They could just as easily looked at the phenomenon they discuss with a different theoretical lens. The theoretical lens is not a characteristic of the question, but of the researcher. It is a subjective choice informed by the successes and failures of past research in terms of what may or may not provide a useful explanation for the problems in focus, and useful findings that might improve the situation in some way. Thus, not only is the connection to existing knowledge made clear, they do not assume that all the answers lie in the construction management literature. Rather, they identify the kind of science they are applying, and draw upon that to apply it to an empirical phenomenon that is specifically in construction. This way, their findings may be of relevance to the world outside of construction management, which is useful.
I hope that these two examples help those postgradaute students who are not entirely clear about the expectations they are being confronted with in their work.
No comments:
Post a Comment