Day 1 - Reading to Cochem

The tunnel crossing was booked for 8:20, which required check-in by 7:50 am.  Although I thought I'd left in plenty of time, at 06:00, it didn't turn out that way.  The sun was just rising as I left home, and the blue skies augured well for the journey.  Although the temperature was about 6°C It was uncomplicated, and the route was mostly free of queuing traffic, but this was  an ordinary week-day morning and there were many places with slow moving traffic due to road-works.  It must have been this that extended my journey time, because I checked-in at 7:51, and the nice machine told me that I was to late and had missed my booked train, so I was allocated the next available one which was at 08:21.  I still don't understand how this works, given that there are three trains per hour, but, as always, I was immediately directed to the train, avoiding the terminal building and waiting time that other vehicles are generally subjected to.  I was slotted on at the back of the train, unusually the only bike, and there was one empty carriage behind me.  The crossing was as straightforward as ever, and I advanced the time on my phone and satnav by an hour, wrote a few text messages and checked the security of the bags on the bike, and we arrived in Calais on schedule at nearly 10 am.

The journey to Brussels through France and Belgium was unremarkable, but I stopped for coffee to ease the discomfort in my knee, which has been getting weak lately.  I must exercise it more.  As I had filled the tank in England at Maidstone (Junction 8, M20), I didn't need petrol again until Rotselaar in Belgium, about half way.  This was perfect as it lasted until my destination, which had a petrol station practically next door to it.

The route I had chosen to get to Bruttig-Fankel was nearly on motorways, which were busy, and pretty dull to drive on.  The sun disappeared behind clouds in the middle of Belgium, and it started to drizzle.  For the last four hours of riding, it had rained constantly, though lightly.  My new Hein Gericke gear kept me nice and dry, but once the rain started, it did get cold, even though the temperature was now around 11-12°C.  I was quite tired and cold by the time I arrived at the hotel, about 16:00.  But the welcome from Klumke and Matt de Bruyn was wonderful.  Almost the first thing Klumke asked me, after welcoming me was, "would you like a coffee, or a beer?"  Beer it was, and I was surprised to find it was Bitburger.  In fact, because of the way I had found the hotel, I had not realised we were so close to Nürburgring until I passed signs for it not far back, and to get here came right through Cochem, which is a short way up the road.  I was here in October with my friends when we stayed at Adenau and hired Nürburgring for the day.  I had done eleven laps of it and earned the right to put the sticker on my bike!  Well, here I was again, so I lost no time in texting my pals to tell them I was drinking Bitburger near Cochem.  They were envious!

Matt knocked me up a lovely pizza with spinach and tomato and cheese on it, while I supped draft Bitburger and chatted to Klumke in the bar (her name is a nickname that means little clog in Dutch, as she is quite small).  There were various people in the bar, one German man who had worked on the trawlers from Penzance and the oil rigs off Aberdeen.  He had spent a lot of time living and working in UK and his kids had been born in Scotland.  Divorced now, he does odd jobs around the place, but holds out no hope of getting a full-time job again.  He was up and down a lot during the conversation as he seemed to be advising or helping with some building work here to install a bathroom in one of the rooms, a job that was behind schedule as someone is supposed to be staying in that room tomorrow!  It won't be ready. He asked about my route here and suggested a much better one for next time - from Brussels ring road, head towards Luxembourg, on E40 (A3), stick to E40 around the edge of Liege, then the E42 (A27) towards Malmedy, Wittlich, Cochem. Much less traffic and good roads, apparenetly.

After dinner (which was thankfully quite early, as I was really hungry), I walked around the village and took some photographs.  On returning to my room I was very tired, so I thought I would have a rest for a moment before returning to the bar and the conversations there, but I instantly fell asleep until my phone made a noise.  So I got into bed at 20:45 and slept solidly until 05:30 the next morning.  This place is brilliantly quiet at night, not a sound.  I heard the birds waking up one by one, and then got up myself and redistributed my luggage in the panniers and top box.  I was ready for my breakfast at 07:00 and had a few more nice chats with Klumke and Mat.  It wasn't like coming to a hotel, more like visiting friends.   I must make a note in the online booking pages about what a good place this is to stay!

I packed up and loaded up and was ready to go at 08:00 on schedule.

Finding out what is being published

There are some very useful resources for researchers that will inform you about what is being published in journals and conferences that you are interested in.

Zetoc Alert - provides access to the contents tables of the British Library's collection of 20,000 journals and 16,000 conference proceedings publihsed each year.

Current Contents - provides access to leading scholarly journals (I think all the ISI-listed journals) and about 7,000 websites.

Informaworld - provides access to all the Taylor & Francis and Informa journals and periodicals.

In each case, you can choose which journals you are interested in and you will automatically receive an alert the moment they publish an article. This is a good way of keeping track of what is being published, as it comes out.

Rhythmic ripples

As part of a two-day research meeting, we took part in a workshop. It involved everyone, each in a solitary way. We each had to pour ourselves a glass of water, but not the glasses that most of us were already drinking from. Smaller tumblers were issued. We were asked not to drink the water straight away, but to "experience" the glass of water... like a meditation. We had to spend five minutes experiencing the glass of water. So I suspended my disbelief and cynicism, and reached out my hand to grasp my glass gently, without picking it up. I could see rhythmic ripples on the surface, very small, some of which may have been my pulse. Interlaced with this was another rhythm, perhaps caused by my neighbour tapping his foot. Bigger, less rhythmic ripples occurred from time to time as another neighbour adjusted his position. I saw the ceiling lights reflected on the surface, and refracted below the surface, reflecting off the inside of the glass. There were 28 different points of light, in groups of two or three, on the surface. Below the surface there were 58. Then the five minutes were up and I'd not yet taken a sip. Too slow, me.

The next part of the workshop involved running your tongue over all of your teeth, inside and out, all surfaces of the teeth that could be reached with the tongue. I cannot now recall how long that went on for. We were given a piece of A4 drawing paper and a pencil. Then we had to close our eyes, put the pencil on the paper, and envision our mouths. We then signed consent forms for our drawings to be used as part of a research project on art in healthcare. That was our workshop experience. Puzzling, eh?

On the ephemeral nature of buildings

Obviously, the urban environment has a certain permanence to it. "Bricks and mortar", "as safe as houses", "concrete reality", are example of phrases that reassure us that the buildings are erected for decades, if not centuries. There are indications for designers and planners that buildings have life spans of upwards of 50 years. The land upon which we build is even more permanent, and the buildings that we add to land, if they are in the right location, make the land valuable (even permission to build will add this value to land). So it is clear that buildings have a certain degree of longevity and permanence, and that people engage with them for the long-term, right? Well, perhaps. I have not checked this for a while, but I recall that the average length of occupation of a dwelling in the UK was about seven years. In other words, on the average, people move house every seven years -- nothing permanent about that then.

I also heard a similar statistic for offices. There is a constant churn in the office market, not only in moving but also in refurbishing. In fact, fully half of the UK construction market is activity other than new building. One thing that really brought this home to me was the UK's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in which public sector buildings were procured using private sector finance (largely from the banks). The basic idea is that a bank puts up the money for building a facility, then the private sector is paid a monthly or annual fee for operating the facility, from which they can repay the loan. This method of procuring public sector infrastructure has been very popular, and one unintended consequence is that the consortia who build such a facility, and operate it, sell it on to other operators. There is a healthy secondary market in completed PFI facilities, whereby an operator can buy the thing and run it. So, the idea of engaging the supply-side in long-term commitment has only resulted in yet another short-term engagement, as I am coming to expect with the construction sector.

So I have come to the conclusion that far from being permanent things, buildings are ephemeral. I don't mean the structure or the land. I mean our relationship with a building and the way that we define it and use it. Can we say that every part of the urban environment that we relate to is a constantly changing and ephemeral interpretation that is only temporarily ascribed to it? Does this help us to relate to the urban environment, or to interpret it?

Orchestras

On Saturday, I got a call from one of the orchestras I play with occasionally. I was invited to an orchestral workshop all day on Sunday, and had the great pleasure of working through Tchaikovsky's 1st Symphony, which was unknown to me until then. That was a good day out, and a welcome break from the pressures of work, although quite tiring. Now, I am trying to remember the various commitments to orchestras that are lined up over the next few weeks, and this is as good a place as any to keep a list:

• Reading Youth Orchestra: Sunday 21 March - Rossini: Tancredi Overture, Saint-Saens: Cello Concerto No. 1 (Soloist: Oliver Howell, RYO Principal), Haydn: Symphony no. 104 (London Symphony) - Venue: Christ Church, Henley-on-Thames.
  
• Crowthorne Symphony Orchestra: Saturday 27 March - Malcolm Arnold: Little Suite No. 1, Chabrier: España, Max Bruch: Kol Nidrei (Soloist: Jennie Brown), Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5 - Venue: The Old Gym, Wellington College, Crowthorne
  
• Langtree Sinfonia: Sunday 9th May 2010 - Sibelius: The Swan of Tuonela, Schumann: Piano concerto (Soloist: Nils Franke), Schumann: 3rd Symphony - Venue: Dorchester Abbey
  

You'd be most welcome to pop along and see any of these performances. There will probably be tickets on sale at the door. Let me know if you want to come and listen!

Cacography

A referee for a paper in the journal that I edit used an unfamiliar word to describe the quality of a particularly problematic paper that we are dealing with: cacography. I was immediately intrigued by this word, appearing in this context, "The paper is not presented well with errors of typographies and cacographies...". A quick bit of internet searching reveals that this is a word with strong pedigree, deriving from the Greek kakos meaning bad and graphos meaning writing. The prefix is not connected with the Old English word cack which means excrement (a word that we used to use in its correct sense when we were kids, I was pleased to learn!) According to Michael Quinion, cacography seems to have emerged at the end of the 16th century in the sense of bad spelling, around the time that personal choices for spelling were becoming less acceptable with the development of standardized approaches due to the new technology of printing. In this sense, cacography was seen as the opposite of orthography which was the term for correct spelling. Subsequently, it came also to refer to bad handwriting, as an opposite of calligraphy, which refers to fine writing. My correspondent was using it to refer to poor sentence composition, as opposed to mere spelling mistakes. What a fine word.

Google Wave

I was invited into Google Wave today by a colleague. It loks neat, with some nice friendly videos to introduce the service (meaning I cannot really see the intros on the train or in the lounge at home, where others are sitting).

I am not sure I am ready for this. I am already maintaining profiles in Google Blog, LinkedIn, Facebook, Academia.edu and the University profile webpage, not to mention the Virtual Learning Environment (Blackboard) where every programme and course that I teach on gives me a space for my personal profile... Most importantly, I want to keep my academic CV up to date in order to respond promptly to requests for information about recent activities.

All of these profiles are completely exclusive and independent of each other. And I am successfully using blogs for research supervision and research collaboration, so I do not feel that there is a problem to which Google Wave offers a solution. I want to wait until there is a bit more cross-platform integration. Is there any sign of some intelligent interfaces between all of these different services so that each can take structured information from the other? Isn't that what meta-tags were supposed to enable?

Multiple journal submissions

It is interesting how much there is to learn about publishing that appears not to be passed on by PhD supervisors to their students. Today I dealt with a problem author whose paper to Construction Management and Economics was not only 70% longer that the maximum we allow, but was also, as it turned out, very similar to another paper by the same author that I had dealt with only the day before. The similarities were obvious when I looked at them so close together, but it turned out that he had submitted three papers over a month or so, all drawing from his PhD, all far too long, and only differing in terms of the focus of the cases being presented in each paper. Each repeated the same mistakes as the other (not taking a critical stance in reviewing the literature and lacking in a certain punchiness to the conclusions).

When I challenged the author about cranking out so many papers from the same PhD, he pointed out that he had a further six papers in various states of progress, all reaching the same conclusion, but based on different case studies. I pointed out that this was not good academic practice and that we only wanted one paper that fell within our word limits. The author was very attentive to what I was saying, and it was clear that this was all new to him, having only recently completed his PhD. He suggested, respectfully, that maybe the published Instructions for Authors should make this point clear.

The problem with that suggestion is that the Instructions for Authors (IfA) are not meant to form general advisory page about the protocols of academic publishing, a topic about which much has been written in the past. Rather, the IfA are intended to highlight journal-specific matters. Moreover, we tend to see advice about general academic conduct as a primary responsibility of PhD supervisors, who usually make sure that they enlighten their PhD students about a much wider range of issues than multiple submissions. I have tried to make the general principles of authorship clear in publications of my own, in the past, for example:

Hughes, W.P. (2008) Getting your research published in refereed journals. In: Knight, A. and Ruddock, L. (eds). Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 193-206. ISBN: 9781405161107.


But of course, I am not the only person who writes such papers, and it is quite important for new academics to learn about a whole range of issues relating to developing a career as a professional academic. And finely slicing a piece of research into a disproportionately large number of papers is only one of many pitfalls for the budding academic.

Corporate Christmas Cards

I have always found corporate Christmas cards to be something of an irritation, especially when the signatures are printed into the card, and from a range of people some of whom are known to me, but most of whom are not. It seems a particularly meaningless gesture. What is happening this year, as firms cut back on their expenditure, is that all sorts of people are sending electronic greetings cards instead. Often to "Dear All". All sorts of twee images and animations, often with sickeningly trite Christmas music. What compels this kind of corporate behaviour? It would be much nicer not to get these things cluttering up the inbox and in-tray. Bah, humbug.

More snow

I had a pleasant walk home from the University - it took about two hours. Very nice to see the beautiful scenery in the snow. It beats me why anyone would have tried driving in it! This evening, we went for another walk to have another look at the traffic chaos. It was amazing to see the feats of stupidity that the motorists indulged in, sliding and slipping all over the place, even though they'd been told by all the passers-by that the road was completely closed! St Peter's Hill was amazing, abandoned cars, lorries and buses all over the place. Priest Hill had a No 22 bus crashed and jammed right across the road, at right angles to the traffic flow. All the other abandoned vehicles I saw had merely skidded and been left where they landed, without serious collision. Everything was wonderfully chaotic and the people were being so kind to each other, it gave me a rosy glow. Apart from the nutters who could not believe that the roads were impassable. Oh, what fun...

Snow

The snow was quite nice this morning. Not much evidence of grit on the roads, and some of the hilly roads has cars and vans scattered around like toys, all trying to make slippery progress in a straight line and bouncing gently off each other and off parked cars. I was so glad not to be sliding down a hill out of control like last year. Apparently, another blizzard is due to hit Reading at 15:00 so we'd better not hang around our offices too late. It is very quiet in the University today...

Is private finance the right answer?

There is much written about the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and about Public Private Partnerships. The UK government is clearly keen to involve the private sector in the provision of public services. While such partnerships can be very beneficial, the replacement of public investment by private capital is worrying. What is more worrying is the seemingly uncritical acceptance of this policy by the construction industry. Is this because private finance is such a blindingly obvious solution to various problems, or is it just that searching questions have not been asked?

PFI has long been an alternative to borrowing for under-funded governments. Although it can provide necessary infrastructure, it also carries a service charge, such as tolls for roads, for the duration of the agreement. The end user still pays, whether through taxation or directly to the concessionaire at the point of use. The key feature of private investment is that the money comes from revenue streams instead of from capital investment. Is PFI cheaper because the value of a pound in the future is less than the value of a pound today? This advantage needs to be weighed against the fact that governments ought to be able to borrow more cheaply than the private sector (and the private sector must make a profit). On the face of it, net expenditure is likely to be more if the private sector raises capital and charges government for service provision.

There is great enthusiasm for PFI: Contractors and designers are hungry for the extra work; governments are relieved of the need to use the public sector borrowing. By reducing the PSBR, the balance of payments is instantly improved and the government will appear to be handling the economy very well. They may even be able to cut taxes. All this is splendid during a transition period, before these new facilities come on stream. However, the private sector invests in these things because of the income stream. That income will be from revenue instead of capital funds. By the time this pressure for increased government spending forces taxes to be raised, the government that got us into this position will be long gone. Are we mortgaging our future for the sake of someone’s short-term political advantage?
It seems that when there is any kind of public sector mis-management, the only possible answer is to relieve public sector agencies and departments of future responsibility and transfer it to the private sector – a very defeatist attitude. Why don’t they learn how to manage? Apparently, no one in the public sector knows how to manage so private capital has to be used to give private sector managers the incentives to manage efficiently and this somehow will produce efficiency gains.

The public sector may indeed be inefficient, but surely it can be improved? Are we to understand that the government must never have control over capital investment in case they invest wrongly and that the service providers must have private money because the government is too stupid to give them the right amount of money? This seems to be an extreme reaction. The solution, surely, is to learn from mistakes.

There are political risks involved in partnering with government. PFI has been introduced during an era when successive UK governments have downplayed ideology in favour of appeal to the electorate. But if there is ever a return to a more ideological era, policy changes and government involvement in infrastructure decisions will increase. Such risks will inevitably increase the cost of capital. Thus we move from a situation where the government could borrow cheaply because it was backed by taxation to one where we are going to have to pay more to compensate investors for the fact the government might change its mind about an operating contract at some point over the 25-30 year life of the deal.
There are contractual risks in any construction project. Unpredictable risks are, by definition, difficult and expensive to price for, so they are usually taken by the client (an example being unforeseeable ground conditions). This makes sense when the client is the government. If they pay for things when they go wrong, they pay for what it actually costs, rather than for a contractor’s accumulation of contingencies for when hazards occur. But in PFI, the contractor is not employed by the government. We still encounter the same construction risks, but the client is an “SPV”, which has an inflexible source of funding. Presumably, the clauses relating to unforeseeable ground conditions ought to be crossed out, or at least modified, but it appears that these clauses are not modified. The risks are dealt with as if the client for the construction project is the government; is there a rational risk apportionment strategy at work here? Large, repeat clients can cover the risk. One-off clients cannot. An SPV is a one-off client with no financial resource of its own.

The potential gain using PFI is an efficiency gain brought about because of the reputed expertise of the private sector to be lean and efficient. Added to this are financial benefits of using cheaper future money instead of expensive current money. However, the advantage brought by PFI has to be weighed against the disadvantages; higher cost of capital in the private sector, payment for the revenue stream for the facility, paying for the long-term risk of changes in government policy and transferring major risks to SPVs with inadequate financial reserves. It seems that the whole idea is built upon the dubious assertion that the public sector is completely incapable and the private sector is completely capable. But does the private sector have a blemish-free record of managing major ventures? How many major failures have there been in the private sector recently? I would love to see this debate taken beyond the immediate concerns of firms hungry for work and placed into the longer-term context of the future health of the UK.

Originally published in Construction News in 2002

Authorship

Some years ago, when I was modifying the ARCOM model paper layout to deal with issues of authorship, I suggested the following text: "Authorship should respect the rights of those involved in the production of the paper. The person who wrote most of the text should be the first-named author, even if this is a student. The sequence of authors should reflect the magnitude of each person’s contribution to the text of the particular paper. Supervisors, grant-holders and heads of department should not automatically be added as authors unless they took part in the writing of the paper. If a junior person wrote the paper, and a senior person helped with the editing, structuring and drafting, the senior person should be acknowledged in the acknowledgements, but merely helping to guide someone through the writing process does not warrant authorship."

A colleague on the ARCOM committee responded, thus: "I cannot come to terms with your recommendation to add a text in the Model Paper about the Authorship. I think it is too prescriptive and does not recognize the variety of possibilities that might well be legitimate. There are a diversity of efforts that go into undertaking a research and converting the results into papers. To reduce them into "the person who wrote the most of the text" is an understatement. Obviously there are certain practices that are not acceptable: not reading the paper on which your name comes first is on that radar and plagiarism is at the heart of that radar."

My response was: "I see what you mean. I agree that the world is more complex than the monochrome vision that I paint. And, yes, I agree that I am overstating the case. That is what I usually do! My reason for habitually overstating the case is that it makes it easier to explain, and easier to disagree with. Your rejoinder makes me realize that I should precede my suggested words by making it clear that they are only suggested guidelines which may result in a different approach for particular authors at particular times, but which would at least prompt an informed discussion between authors. My motivation is to empower junior authors to actually have this discussion with their senior co-authors. If they decide that this suggested policy is not appropriate in their case, then OK. I know it sounds prescriptive, but I did not mean to produce a set of rules, so, yes, I should re-phrase it. I wanted to provide an indication of what would be equitable, so that authors did not have to wait until they were more senior to become first authors, by which time they were no longer the primary progenitors of the text!"

Interestingly, none of this text is present in the guidelines now, so we must have got distracted by other matters. I still think that it is important to be clear about authorship of papers, and I still find that it is quite common for senior academics to have their names as authors despite sometimes having little or no involvement in the development or drafting of the paper.

The issue is important, and I quite like the Wikipedia entry about authorship

Strange policy

I enjoyed this news story reported by the BBC. The UK Department of Health part-funded some research looking into the question of whether health professionals could help combat the effects of climate change. The researchers came up with a proposal that was a little bit wierd - kill 30% of Britain's cows and sheep! Not only would this help save the environment; it would also make us healthier. BBC reported: "The theory goes like this: if you have less ruminant livestock, you emit less climate-damaging methane into the atmosphere. You also have less meat to eat, which means less saturated fat in our diets and thus less heart disease." Various ministers came out in support of this marvelous idea until DEFRA heard about it, and they pointed out the stupidity of the policy. How would the farmers react to having to cut their herds? How would you prevent UK from importing masses of meat from Argentina and the like? Unsurprisingly, the policy quickly disappeared even though the report is still available. Magic.

Reviewing research papers

The text below originally appeared in an ARCOM Newsletter. I reproduce a revised version here to make it more accessible to new researchers who might not be combing through back-numbers of ARCOM newsletters at www.arcom.ac.uk

There are many things that contribute to the quality of a research paper. Any report of research begins with a review of the relevant body of literature, and there is excellent guidance for undertaking a literature review in Silverman (2000: 12) and in Rudestam and Newton (1998: 50-51). Based upon this guidance, this paper offers a personal view of what we should be looking for in research papers, with the aim of prompting wider debate.

In all papers, a structure is required and the argument should flow from one section to the next. Obviously, clear English should be used throughout and jargon should be avoided. Good papers will move from the general to the particular and begin with the context of the work, move through the statement of the problem being investigated, deal with the empirical and/or analytical aspects of the work, then develop the discussion and draw conclusions based upon what has been covered in the paper, relating these back to the original context of the work. Generally, papers will either develop theory or test theory. A paper that does neither will not add to the sum of knowledge and therefore will not fall into the category of a research paper. Issues connected with style, structure and presentation are dealt with extensively elsewhere in the literature (for example, Turk and Kirkman 1982) and there is no need to reiterate that guidance here, other than to state that the easiest questions can be the most difficult to answer: what have you done, why is it important and how have you gone about it?.

The focus of this article is on whether the material that is included in a paper is suitable for a research paper, rather than whether it is well-written. Silverman’s (2000) headings form an excellent basis for a discussion of what constitutes a good research paper:

• Conceptualization and theoretical basis of the work
• Analytical framework and hypotheses
• Research design
• Results and discussion
• Conclusions of the paper

Conceptualization and theoretical basis of the work

The first questions to ask about a paper are connected with the problem or issue being investigated. There should be a clear statement near the beginning of a paper explaining what problem the paper seeks to resolve. Authors often leave this until half way through the paper. Indeed, some leave it out altogether, perhaps assuming that it is self-evident or simply not realizing that although it is obvious to the author, a reader with no previous knowledge of the work only has the paper to go on.

Any serious piece of research will involve concepts that are specific to the issue being investigated, or to the investigative approach that has been taken. These need to be summarized at the very least, and explained if they are not common within the field of the target audience. This is not just a case of explaining the concepts related to the particular construction industry phenomena under investigation, but, more importantly, to identify the methodological basis of the work. Thus, a research paper is not place for “text-book” explanations. Of course, the nature of the investigation is inevitably connected to some issue of relevance, but, while it may seem heretical to some, it is not necessary for a piece of construction management research to be practically relevant in industry. A piece of research may hold relevance only for other researchers, but that should not detract from our judgment of its value.

In assessing a report of research, it is always helpful to be able to see clearly how the reported work builds upon previous work. There should be explicit connections to an existing body of knowledge or body of theory, although these may not reside in the literature of construction management. Indeed, it is helpful if there are references to bodies of research and knowledge outside our own “domain”, since ours is not an academic discipline in its own right, with its own research techniques and theories (Hughes, 1999). While there are some emerging strands of theory that are unique to construction management or construction economics, most research in this area builds upon theoretical models developed elsewhere in the social sciences. These connections must be identified in order to make clear where a particular piece of work is rooted and to ensure that we are not simply re-inventing theories and models that are well-known in more mainstream disciplines. Without such connections, we run the risk of consigning our research to an academic backwater. With such connections, we may even be able to influence developments in mainstream thinking. In determining the theoretical basis of a piece of research, it is useful to think about knowledge domains. At the very least, it might be helpful to think about where would you expect to find a particular piece of work in a library so that connections and antecedents are clear.

These issues are important because progress in our understanding often depends upon our ability to generalize from specific examples. One question I often ask research students when they are trying to make these connections is “what is the general class of problem of which your chosen topic is a specific example?”. Understanding this enables some kind of view to be developed about the extent to which findings might be generalized into a wider context. Thus, good papers will begin with what is well-known and move gradually deeper into the less well-known (Latour, 1987: 57).

Analytical framework and hypotheses

All research papers have an analytical framework. Unfortunately, it is not always clearly articulated. The extent to which a particular approach is authoritative is often judged in terms of where it has come from. Thus, further connections to the research literature should be expected in the passages describing the analytical framework. When this is done well, it helps to establish the credibility of the paper by showing the usefulness of the particular approach, or approaches that precede it. The articulation of the analytical framework helps in judging the usefulness of the research question. It explains how the concepts and theories are being applied in this particular case.

One perennial problem with research papers in our field is the question of whether there should be hypotheses. They are certainly not a pre-requisite for a good research paper. In fact, they may not belong at all. The question about whether there should be hypotheses is, perhaps, a wrong question. Their presence or absence depends upon the methodological stance of the research. It is not intended to enter into the methodological debate here, other than to point out the dangers of not understanding the methodological implications of different approaches to research (see, for example, Seymour and Rooke, 1995). Given one methodological stance, hypotheses may be irrelevant. Given another, they may be indispensable.

If there are hypotheses, they should be clearly stated. If there are no hypotheses, then this, of itself, is not a problem, but it should be clear whether the paper is a review, a case study, a contribution to theory development or some other type of study. Without clear articulation, the reader stands no chance of determining the value of the contribution. In the presence of hypotheses, the relationships between the main variables should be explicit and reasonable. They should be stated in a way that makes them testable and the results, no matter what they are, interpretable. If the research is not built on hypotheses, the significance of the paper’s contribution to the development of theory must be explained.

Research design

In undertaking research, there are many methods that can be used to find answers to questions. Some are more suitable than others. In answering certain types of question, one particular method may be very powerful, but the same method may be weak in dealing with other types of question. Therefore, the relevance of the methods of research will be judged in terms of their appropriateness to the nature of the question being asked. Similarly, the sensitivity of the methods must match the needs of the research question. A good paper will make clear the type of research design, perhaps by reference to earlier, similar studies from different regions, different industries or different disciplines.

The research must be focused on an appropriate unit of analysis. It is useful to describe the criteria by which this was chosen, as well as the criteria by which the cases were chosen. For example, the unit of analysis could be a person, a finished building, a project, a firm, an industry or a country. Each would result in an entirely different study from the others. Moreover, cases might be selected from a large number of similar cases, which would imply one kind of approach, or the question might be framed in such a way that there is only one case, implying an entirely different approach. Neither, of itself, is more or less valid than the other. Indeed no judgement can be made about the validity of a piece of research simply by counting the cases or referring to the unit of analysis. Each characteristic depends on the other.

It is always important to address whether the research design isolates what is being measured from other effects, or, at the very least, identifies the inter-relationships between the effect under scrutiny and other effects. If the research design involves the identification of variables, they need to be clearly and reasonably operationalized (i.e. translated into simple descriptions of what is measured and how it is to be measured) and the reliability and validity of the measures should be discussed. Similarly, there will be issues related to the appropriateness of the population for the research question being studied, the sample size used and the extent to which the results can reasonably be generalized on the basis of this particular sample.

Again, not all research is as deterministic as this, but there are traditions in different types of work and if a phenomenological or ethnographic approach is being adopted, then the author should take this stance clearly and confidently and not try to dress it up in hypothetico-deductive clothes! These issues are well-articulated by Johnson and Duberley (2000), who warn against the dangers of not dealing with the epistemological positions that are implicit in different approaches to empirical research. It is important to emphasize that none of us wishes be prescriptive about the kind of research that is encouraged in ARCOM. We welcome research outputs that add to our understanding of construction management issues. But, the relevance and appropriateness of research outputs can only be evaluated in the light of the epistemological background to the research and this is why it is important to discuss the design of the research.

Results and discussion

Within the research paper, the data or evidence of the field-work must be present in some guise. But there are limits on the length of papers, whether for conferences or for journals. It is inevitable that the data will not be reported in their entirety through these outlets. Thus, one technique is to describe what the data is like, rather than what it is. Perhaps sample sections of interview transcripts can be given; examples of diaries or other source documents can be used to illustrate the approach taken. The full record of the data can be maintained elsewhere, perhaps in a departmental library or on the internet, so that the interested reader can interrogate the data further.

In any event, there must be sufficient information within the paper itself for the reader to evaluate whether the data were appropriate for the study and whether the data collection and record keeping were systematic. Similarly, the validity and robustness of the results of the study will depend upon whether the analytical techniques were appropriate and adequately described. Most importantly, there should be reference to accepted procedures for analysis. This helps the reader to understand what kind of tradition there is in the particular kind of analysis and how such research is generally reported.

In assessing how systematic the analysis has been, one of the main ideas is to persuade the reader that if he or she were to have done the same things, then the same conclusions would have been reached (Latour, 1987). Again, it is important that this very statement implies a certain epistemological stance, so the researcher and the reader need to be clear about whether they are working from the same basis in coming to their views about the results and their discussion.

Conclusions

Conclusions can be the most difficult part of a paper to write, particularly if the context and research design have not been addressed properly in the first place. It is often the case that those who have the greatest difficulty writing conclusions, can trace their difficulties to poor research planning. When research is well planned, the conclusions become obvious from the work that has been reported.

No new facts should be introduced in the conclusions. The conclusions of the study should be consistent with the results of the analysis. Where there is no numerical analysis, the conclusions should be consistent with, and follow from, the development of the argument in the paper. I am not quite sure why, but many authors commence their conclusions with a summary of the paper. This is usually not required, if there is already a summary at the beginning.

The conclusions may be expected to reconsider the purpose of the research, summarize what was discovered and provide a discussion about the implications of the findings. In many cases, conclusions can be bolstered by considering whether there are alternative conclusions that are consistent with the data or arguments that have been presented. Also, it is useful to consider both theoretical and practical implications of the results. If the research has been properly contextualized at the beginning of the paper, the theoretical implications of the reported research can be adequately connected to the literature discussed there. It is usual to include limitations of the study and future research needs, to the extent that the research has revealed further gaps in our collective knowledge. The limitations of the study should be noted in terms of the parameters of the research and applicability of the findings. Authors sometimes misinterpret the purpose of a section on limitations of the work and attempt to indulge in soul-searching self-criticism, identifying faults in the execution and reporting of their own work. This is simply not required. The section on limitations should make clear that, for example, the conclusions do not apply to all construction activity in all places at all times. The approach taken in the research enables certain generalizations to be made, but what are they?

Conclusions can also be bolstered by including discussion of the evidence for and against the researcher's arguments and making a clear distinction between the data and their interpretation.

Finally…

Any research paper is capable of being summarized succinctly. Papers are expected to include an abstract or summary at the beginning, especially in the cases of conferences and journals, but this should be the last thing to be written! Although abstracts may be invited for conferences before the paper is written, the abstract of the final paper ought to be written after the paper is finished, summarizing the paper that has been produced, rather than the paper that was originally intended.

In evaluating a research paper, it must be possible for the evaluator to summarize the paper, indicating an overall assessment of the adequacy of the study for exploring the research problem and an overall assessment of the contribution of the study to this area of research. Authors would do well to bear this in mind when writing their papers, so that they can provide the relevant cues that will lead a reader to conclude exactly what the author has concluded. Sometimes, there is simply not sufficient information in the paper to enable such statements to be articulated. In such cases, the paper should be revised.

References

Hughes, W.P. (1999) Construction research: a field of application. Australian Institute of Building Papers, 9, 51-58.
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding management research: an introduction to epistemology.
London: Sage.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process. London: Sage.
Seymour, D. E. and Rooke, J. (1995) The culture of the industry and the culture of research. Construction Management and Economics, 13(6), 511-523.
Silverman, D. (2000) Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Turk, C. and Kirkman, J. (1982) Effective writing: improving scientific, technical and business communication. London: Spon.

Checklist of questions to keep in mind while reviewing a research paper:

1 Conceptualization and theoretical basis of the work

(a) What is the problem or issue being investigated?
(b) What are the major concepts, and how clearly are they defined/explained?
(c) Is the connection to an existing body of knowledge or theory clear?
(d) Is there some practical relevance in this work (research practice or industrial practice)?
(e) What is the theoretical basis of this work, i.e. knowledge domain, for example, where would you expect to find this work in a library (classification number)?

2 Analytical framework and hypotheses

(a) Is there a clearly stated research question? (It might not be a research paper, as such)
(b) Are there hypotheses? Are they clearly stated? If there are not hypotheses, is the paper a review, case study, contribution to theory development or some other type of study?
(c) If there are hypotheses, are the relationships between the main variables explicit and reasonable? If there are not hypotheses, is there adequate development of theory?
(d) If there are hypotheses, are they stated in a way that makes them testable and the results, no matter what they are, interpretable? If there are not hypotheses, are there clear indications as to the significance to theoretical development?

3 Research design

(a) Are the methods of research appropriate to the nature of the question being asked?
(b) What is the type of research design?
(c) Could the design be improved? How?
(d) Is there a clear account of the criteria used for selecting the focus (unit) of analysis and the cases chosen?
(e) Does the research design isolate what is being measured from other effects? Are the variables clearly and reasonably operationalized (what is measured and how)? Are the reliability and validity of the measures discussed?
(f) Is the population appropriate for the research question being studied? Is the sample specified and appropriate? Can the results be reasonably generalized on the basis of this sample?

4 Results and discussion

(a) Are the data appropriate for the study? Was the data collection and record keeping systematic?
(b) Are the statistical techniques appropriate and adequately described? Is reference made to accepted procedures for analysis?
(c) Are the control variables adequately handled in the data analysis? Are there other control variables that were not considered but should have been?
(d) How systematic is the analysis?
(e) Is there adequate discussion of how themes, concepts and categories were derived from the data?

5 Conclusions

(a) Do the conclusions flow from the work that has been reported?
(b) Are the conclusions of the study consistent with the results of the analysis? (If there is no numerical analysis, are the conclusions consistent with the development of the argument in the paper?)
(c) Are alternative conclusions that are consistent with the data discussed and accounted for?
(d) Are the theoretical and practical implications of the results adequately discussed? Are the theoretical implications adequately connected to the literature discussed at the beginning of the paper?
(e) Are the limitations of the study noted (in terms of parameters of the research and applicability of the findings)?
(f) Is there adequate discussion of the evidence for and against the researcher's arguments?
(g) Is a clear distinction made between the data and their interpretation?

6 Summary

(a) What is your overall assessment of the adequacy of the study for exploring the research problem?
(b) What is your overall assessment of the contribution of the study to this area of research?

References

Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (2007) Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process. 3rd ed. London: Sage
Silverman, D. (2009) Doing qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Schwarzwaldhochstraße

I have been reading about a road worth riding on the bike - Schwarzwaldhochstraße (Black Forest High Road), the B500 from Baden-Baden to Freudenstadt. Has anyone else tried it? It looks awesome. It could be a good waypoint on my next trip to Croatia... Or next trip to Nürburgring.

Crowthorne Symphony Orchestra

Monday evening is the weekly rehearsal for Crowthorne Symphony Orchestra. This evening's rehearsal was the first for two weeks. It was also the AGM, an annual meeting where the committee reports on the previous year's progress and think about the coming year. Things seem to be moving in a positive direction. Last year's concerts were very challenging for us, and as the orchestra gets better, the music gets harder! The orchestra is in good shape, by all accounts. Our recurring difficulty is getting sufficient violin players. But the continual throughput of people means that the orchestra is constantly changing. However, there are sufficient stalwarts to provide a sense of continuity and consistency. The orchestra has been going since 1991, since when it has been through a couple of name changes.

Our next concert will be Sunday 20th December, where we'll be playing Beethoven's Egmont Overture, Sibelius' Finlandia, Weber's Clarinet Concertino and Schumann's Symphony No. 4. Two of these pieces, the Weber and the Schumann, are new to me. They are shaping up well, and the more we play them, the clearer they become in terms of structure, shape and ensemble. The Sibelius and the Beethoven are well-known, excellent pieces. It promises to be a good concert!

Nürburgring on motorcycles

The Ring was truly awesome. What a fantastic experience. There were no others on the track, just our party of roughly 150 participants bumbling around in groups of about eight riders, each group following a leader who was highly experienced and could show us the correct line for every corner. And there was no overtaking, so we could ignore our mirrors and concentrate on bike handling, and avoiding riding into the back end of the bike in front. The groups were graded according to ability, and the first lap was unsuccessful, as we had self-selected and therefore groups were a bit mixed. Also, the first couple of laps were maddeningly slow, because it was important for us to find our way round the track and get to know the danger spots. After the first lap, it was clear that I was in the wrong group, and immediately bumped up 6 levels to a more appropriate group. Each lap the pace got more progressive, and I learned a lot about the track and about my bike’s handling. It was just brilliant. On top of that we had a day out riding the local roads in the region and seeing some of the wonderful scenery. And a 400-mile ride each end between home and Nordschleife. It was a brilliant experience, and I am very keen to do it again!

The hotel I stayed at overlooked the track, at Breidsheid. The first photo here is the view from my window. An awesome place to stay. The second photo is the view of my hotel from the track. This scene is well-known to anyone who has tried playing on this track in PlayStation racing games! The season was just about over, but even so, there was a good enough social life in Adenau for us to go out and eat and drink in the evenings. The region is beautiful, and the Nürburgring is a real spectacle, even if you just watch. It is well worth visiting if you get a chance.

Our trip was organized by TVAM, an IAM-affiliated group of advanced motorcyclists who provide training and support for improving road standards and safety. This was the first time they'd organized a trip to Nürburgring and, by all accounts, it was a tremendous success. The rest of my photographs are on Webshots, here.

To withdraw or not to withdraw?

A colleague from another University asked me a question: he submitted a paper to an international journal and had received no response after 10 months. He tried to contact the editor and his secretary said that the review process has started but they have not received all the responses from reviewers. Did I think it is OK for him to write a formal letter to withdraw the paper now? Or should he wait until the decision is made, no matter how long it takes? I was quick to advise him as follows.

In my experience, the gathering of referee reports is a burdensome task for an editor and the editorial office. One of the reasons that it can take so many months to get reports is that referees often do not answer promptly, or they say they will carry out the task, then change their minds, or they are just slow because of all the other demands on their time. Often, over a period of many months, we might find that we have tried 20 different referees in order to end up with the requisite four reports.

After all this work it is very annoying to then discover that the author wants to withdraw the paper! However, if the paper is rejected, then there is no real problem. Alternatively, if the decision is Major, or Reject & Resubmit, then that is an opportunity for the author to say to the editor that the requirements are just too harsh, and that he or she would prefer to withdraw it. But if an editor calls for minor revisions, or simply accepts the paper, the author really should not withdraw it. It would be bad protocol, because the editorial office and the referees wouyld have been working through this process for no reason. Perhaps the question to ask is, why would an author want to withdraw a paper mid-way through a long refereeing process? I have come across situations where an author has realized, too late, that there are such significant flaws in the paper that it really should go no further. This would need some careful dialogue wit the editor, explaining why the paper cannot continue in the process.

I summed up my advice thus. Therefore, you need pretty strong reasons for withdrawal. Either the editor's requirements are too harsh, or you have discovered some aspect of the paper that renders it unpublishable. I don't think that you should withdraw for any other reason, unless you want to upset the editor!

Article 25

The declaration of human rights includes, at Article 25.1 the following text:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood beyond his control.

This has inspired Victoria Harris to set up a voluntary group to carry out development work and post-disaster redevelopment and reconstruction. This group is called Article 25. They have carried out a number of projects in various countries, and among other things seek to set up student chapters in universities around the world. What a great idea! They run a database of volunteers and they are able to join up with local agencies and help to deliver projects that would otherwise be impossible. In other words, they actually design, manage and build construction projects. Unlike most organizations, they don't just talk about it, but actually get engaged an do stuff. Can you help them? It seems like a good opportunity for doing some meaningful voluntary work.