Bringing science into disrepute

There is a growing number of journals and conferences whose sole purpose seems to be to elicit papers and then charge authors for publication. This is not the route to scientific communication and dialogue. Here is today's example, which seems to be sent to anyone they can get an email address for, regardless of the kind of science or quality of work:

Journal of Applied Science and Innovations

Dear Dr Professor Will Hughes

Greetings from Journal of Journal of Applied Science and Innovations 

To celebrate the Vol. 1 Issue 3, it is our pleasure to invite you to contribute an article. Your contribution will help the journal to establish its high standards and get indexed by prestigious indexing services soon.

Short-communications, Review articles, Research articles, Case reports etc. are also accepted.

Note: On this happy occasion, we are here to announce that those who contribute their manuscripts will receive Discount to the articles submitted on or before November 10, 2017.

Submit your article at to this E-mail id.
appliedscience@rroij.com, editor.jasi@peerreviewedjournals.com

Please provide your acceptance to the same.

Look forward for your reply

Best regards,
Cynthia Grace
Journal Coordinator 
Journal of Applied Science and Innovations

Disclaimer
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The views, opinions, conclusions and other information’s expressed in this electronic mail are not given or endorsed by the company unless otherwise indicated by an authorized representative independent of this message.

There are hallmarks of fake standing here. Claims that the journal has high standards and hints that it might become indexed by as commercial indexing service, as if that were a badge of recognition. It isn't. Many indexing services are indiscriminate. The list of types of communication that indicates they will take anything as long as you pay. You can even get a discount on the charges for publication if you are quick! So, the only things missing from this is any connection to a recognised University, an established publisher, an international editorial board, a web page, even a named editor who is an authority in a particular field.

I sincerely hope that no one is taken in by this cynical practice of milking the academic community for money.

Chale Wote Arts Festival 2017

Avoid Chale Wote festival, Jamestown, Accra. It is dangerous. As soon as I walked near to it, six burly men wearing white tee-shirts with the word "Security" in white letters on black background accosted me. They were rude and aggressive. They had seen me taking a photo of some graffiti as we strolled down the street. We had seen no entrance, and no apparent barrier into this festival. I was not even planning on spending more than ten minutes on this festival, as I wanted to visit other places in the vicinity. These men surrounded me, held my arms and roughly manhandled my expensive camera from me. They were all shouting very threateningly that I was not allowed to take photos without a permit and I would need to pay GH$250. “This is not America”, they shouted as the marched away with my camera signalling that I should follow. I tried to explain that I was not American, but they were not interested. I supposed that they were not referring to nationality but to the rule of law and human rights. I shuddered inside. This was scary. Should I go with them, or just write off the camera and all the photos from the trip so far?

The further we walked, the more shocked and scared I became. I had already been walking around Jamestown, having first visited the Fisherman's Village. The plan was to swing through this festival (AKA giant art sale) and visit the boxing gym to see and photograph the local kids being trained. But these security thugs were not interested. They walked away with my camera and someone said, “go with them”. I had no choice. They marched me to the quadrangle of some old building and they took my camera indoors and upstairs while I was told to wait outside in a quadrangle, surrounded by a crowd of about 20 beefy men with bulging muscles and tight shirts and scowling faces. These were thugs, not security people, despite what it said on some of the tee-shirts. My guide was also clearly disturbed by this and started calling his boss to come and help, and the other guide duly turned up. Lots of shouting in local language. I was nervous and feeling extremely vulnerable. Even the guides were ineffectual at getting my camera back or calming the thugs.

After ten minutes, the first man, tall and threatening with his moustache and posturing body language, came back out and barked questions at me but did not let me answer. He said I must go with him to pay this money and get a permit. After several attempts at asking him to just listen quietly, I managed to tell him who I was, that I was not a commercial photographer, and that I was not interested in permits or commercial arrangements. I just wanted my camera back and to leave, as I was running short of time by now. I was on a three-hour window to explore this area and I didn't want to spend any more time in Chale Wote Festival. I told him my name and workplace and showed him my business card. He made a token attempt to look up my name on the internet but just shouted the strange response, "your name is not in the database, I don't trust you, you are collecting data and you cannot have data for free, you need to pay". He then walked across to a quieter part of the quadrangle and told me to go with him away from the thugs. he looked me in the eye and quietly asked, "OK, do you work for MI5?", "no sir", I answered politely. "Do you work for MI6?", "No, sir", I answered politely. A short pause then he said, "OK, I don’t believe you. You are being tricky, you are a spy". What demented fantasist! Clearly, whatever I had to say was of no interest or significance. The man was a delusional mobster and imagined that he was a really important part of the festival, because he could command some thugs to be violent. So I was as meek and calm as I could be.

I was then marched over to another place. On the way, we walked passed the graffiti that I had photographed in the first moments of this terrible experience. Two small boys, about 11-12 years old attracted my attention. One took my hand momentarily while we walked and said quietly and calmly, “don’t worry, you will get your camera back”. He smiled while he said it and for some reason, this was remarkably reassuring. His friend on the sidewalk pointed at the people with my camera, then at himself that and me and mimed, “you will get it back”. My emotional reaction in this turmoil turned to amusement as I digested the irony of what the boys was indicating – that if the thugs did not give it to me, the boys would just steal it and bring it to me! Amazing. I would have happily paid them if it came to that. (Afterwards, I discovered that they had already ascertained which taxi was waiting for me, so they would know where I was later, if it came to that. Fighting fire with fire, I thought.)

In this next location, other people shouted at each other for a while, the original thugs having disappeared, apart from the one carrying my camera, although he had no security tee-shirt or anything that would identify him. I started to imagine that he was holding the camera until someone gave him some money. We then went to yet another place, something like a car park with gazebos and a place where permits on lanyards were being sold to people filling in forms and parting with cash. Various unknown and unidentifiable people yelled at each other and argued. My senior guide was getting so angry at these idiots he was shouting and waving his arms and it all seemed as though things might get violent, after all. And then finally someone calm faced me and said, "OK, you can have you camera back if you pay GH$250 for a two-day permit but you must ask your man to stop shouting so aggressively". I said that he was not “my man” and I did not want a permit; I did not want to take any photos; my time at this venue was finished. I just wanted to leave.

I had been held detained for nearly an hour by now and was getting very thirsty in the hot sun and was sick with worry. Three Police stood nearby looking completely disinterested; clearly, this was normal life. I tried to stand near them and to get their attention, but they were totally oblivious and uninterested. I guessed that they needed cash in order to intervene and only worked for the highest payer. I could not compete. Finally, a big man about 6 feet 6 inches tall joined in. He would not speak to me or make eye contact. When I tried to explain myself to him he just shushed me and said, "I want to know what these guys are telling me". He did not want to know what I had to say. Then another man joined in and he would not let me speak until he heard what the shouty people had to say. Finally, he looked at me and said calmly that they had a big festival, that he was the representative of the mayor and some other authority, that they were providing blanket coverage of the whole event to ensure that nothing untoward happened, that they were conscious of the need to control and manage what was going on and that I would get my camera back. He asked me for my account of the situation and I explained that I was a professor here for a conference that was over and had just taken a short walking tour of Jamestown with a guide in order to take some photos and see local life. I was not really interested in Chale Wote. It was just something we came across. “There has been a misunderstanding”, he said. “Fine”, said I, “can I please have my camera back now as I need to leave”. “You will get your camera back”, he said, and then took me with an entourage of more shouty people, including the youth who would not give up the camera, to another place with big steel doors and a little step-through gate, into yet another courtyard. Here, there were some artists demonstrating their art of making something to an audience. For some reason, we had to stand here to argue some more with the same people. It was getting surreal. I tried to ask this senior man, if I was going to get my camera back, could we stop arguing about it and just give it back to me so that I could be on my way. But, apparently, he still had to argue with a few more thugs first.

Finally, in this performance space, the youth relinquished the camera, and I was allowed to put it back in its case, which was still on my shoulder. I left with my guide because the car I had booked for the morning was waiting for me, and there was now only sufficient time to back to the hotel before the agreed car hire time elapsed. I was called back, of course, as these people, whoever they were had not finished. Now, the issue was that they did not want me to leave feeling victimised, bullied and upset. The mayor's rep wanted to apologise and wanted me to accept that it was just a little misunderstanding. Despite my inner anger and extreme anxiety about spending another moment in this terrible place, I shook his hand, looked him in the eye, and quietly, calmly thanked him for his apology and told him I accepted it. Then I walked away at a brisk pace without looking back, as they continued to shout their vain attempts to persuade me that this was just a little misunderstanding. Finally, back at the car the guides wanted money even though they had failed to provide the protection that they had promised and they would not let the car go until I handed over something. They said they had helped me because they had got my camera back. I said, no, you made it worse by shouting and jumping around as if you were going to beat someone up. I had got the camera back myself from the mayor’s representative by talking quietly and calmly. But they insisted that I had to donate something to the free school they ran for the fishing village kids, so I had to give them some money in order to leave. Actually, the taxi driver gave them some money, because he wanted to leave. I refunded him later. By now, I just needed to get out of there as quickly as possible without looking back.

After struggling through road blocks and police and security people shouting that we were not permitted to drive out, as we should never have driven in, we finally escaped. What a bloody shambles. As you might imagine, my recommendation is steer clear of this place unless you leave your camera at home. Even then, steer clear of Chale Wote Festival. It is an awful, nasty and brutish place where gangs are operating under cover of some kind of fake authority. If you must go, stay in a large group with some strong, local, official guides with you at all times. And don’t take a camera!

Units of measurement

As a society, we have, for centuries, been developing measurement standards and a variety of units for a wide range of purposes. But watching and listening to BBC, I have come to realise that there is now only one unit of measurement; football pitches. Everything on the BBC is measured in football pitches. So, what I want to know is, how big is a football pitch? I wish we could use real units of measurement.

Conceptualizing a research project

In my work as a supervisor of dissertations, whether BSc, MSc or PhD, I have developed an approach to help with research design and developing an outline of research.

The first question that needs to be settled is, what kind of science does the student want to do? Incidentally, social science is a kind of science in my mind. Who are the key researchers in the field that this students wants to base his/her work on? Some kind of conceptual model is usually required to make clear how the main concepts connect. The main concepts would be drawn from the research literature on the topic.

Second, where is the data from and how will it be analysed? Many students begin the dissertation process with a description of the kind of observations they wish to make, but this can only be part of the research design if it is placed in the context of the conceptual model, which itself is based on a theoretical position.

Third, if someone is working in a well-trodden academic discipline with a clear theoretical tradition that underpins it, then they typically do not explain their theoretical position, since understanding that is taken as a basic tenet in the discipline. So it is fair to expect that many papers will be silent about their theoretical perspective, even though it can be implied from the kind of question they are dealing with. In a multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary field like construction management, it is important to be explicit about the theoretical position. This does not always need a whole chapter. It is sometimes a few lines in the early part of the dissertation.

Following these three aspects, the initial work will rely heavily on literature review and will set up theory-concept-observation as an axis that leads to the research design. I tend to insist on a clear explanation of the connection between theory-concept-observations. Every dissertation student, I think, needs this to be clear in the write-up. This initial setting up will eventually form approximately half of the thesis followed, of course, by the second half; analysis-discussion-conclusions, which acts as a kind of mirror to the first half. These may be translated approximately into chapters: introduction, literature, methods. And it is useful to think how the analysis reflects the methods; the discussion reflects the literature (and conceptual model); the conclusions reflect the introduction.

With this conceptual model of a research dissertation in mind, I find supervision becomes much more transparent and students tend to see better where they are headed. There is no strict recipe for a dissertation, of course, and each student will change this initial framework as their confidence grows. But I find it forms a good starting point. Many different kinds of research can be covered by adapting this model to fit the kind of research.

I sketch this out frequently when talking to students, annotating it with keywords and ideas that relate to their specific interests and type of research. Sometimes it needs significant changes in order to make sense. But it still forms a good starting point for the early discussions when the student does not really understand what it means to do research and the supervisor does not really understand what the student wants to do. I have not yet had time to prepare a nice graphic with drafting software, but a pen-sketch is good enough:

The diagram shows how the conclusions relate back to the theory, how the discussion chapter relates to the conceptual model and how the analysis relates to the observation. It also shows how the aims inform the theory, the theory informs the objectives, the objectives drive the literature review to provide the conceptual model, the conceptual model leads to the research design and so on. Finally, we can see how the general issues lead to increasingly specific issues in the first half, and the second half involves moving back to generalized statements for the conclusions.

It must also be noted that not all research goes through this sequence. Ethnographic methods are often highly appropriate for construction management research, especially for those who have experience in practice. It is not always necessary to behave as if you have no experience or as if you were an outsider to the industry. If you are an insider, then look at ethnographic methods. These often involve immersing oneself in the field and then developing theory from the experience. For part-time MSc students, in particular, this is a very powerful way of construction a piece of valid research.

Why vegetarian?

People often ask me why I am vegetarian. They seem to find it odd. So many people seem to find it difficult to contemplate excluding meat from their diet. Watching this video reminded me that I find it it difficult to understand why anyone would willingly eat meat or fish. Not only the mindless slaughter; not only the unnecessary damage to the environment. But why would anyone choose to put this stuff into their mouths? Indeed, why would anyone put this into their children's mouths? I suppose that people can continue to eat meat and feed it to their children for as long as they avoid finding out anything about the processes that bring it to the supermarket. And I know many people who claim to be in the 1% who buy meat that is not factory-farmed. But, what about this: "As people become more aware of the horrors of factory farming, companies are responding by labelling their products “all-natural,” “free-range,” “free-roaming,” or “organic.” But these labels are misleading. Most “free-range” animals are still mutilated and forced to endure long trips to slaughterhouses without any food or water. Moreover, they all have their lives violently cut short and are denied the opportunity to engage in anything that is natural and important to them." Read more here.

Well, have a look at the video, eat some chicken and then reflect on whether there are viable alternatives to eating meat...

Doctoral researchers working with industry

There are at least two perspectives for doctoral researchers contemplating working with industry. First is the problem of negotiating access for data collection and second is developing networks of industry contacts for the purposes of further career development. Many researchers feel that practitioners may be nervous about disclosing commercially sensitive or personal information. It is useful to understand such nervousness and deal with it. This requires clarity and honesty about why data is needed, and a careful data collection strategy that avoids giving the impression that data is being trawled on the chance that something useful will emerge. Some participants seem responsive, others don’t. Therefore, do not worry about unresponsive individuals but focus on finding the responsive ones. Many companies fear that they may give away time that they cannot afford, or, worse, reveal confidential information that might weaken their competitive advantage. It helps take an approach where they stand to gain from participation. It also helps if we talk like someone who understands and appreciates the nature of commercial confidentiality (like you mean it). Generally speaking, companies may not be interested in the intellectual aspects of research but they will be interested in problem-solving. So, try to think about what you might give them in return for their participation that helps with problem-solving. It will probably not be the same material that you incorporate into your thesis, but that’s usually a good thing. In terms of networking, it helps your data collection and negotiation of access if you are not a complete stranger. There are strategies for developing networks, inviting industry people to seminars on campus about your research (involving your supervisors and other academic staff as well as alumni of your School or Department), setting up discussions on serious social networks like LinkedIn and so on. Some time ago, a researcher in USA, Phil Agre, wrote about using the internet for developing research and professional networks and he updates it from time to time. It is worth looking at: http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/Research/Advice/network.html

Conference posters

After submitting your paper to a conference, instead of being invited to make a ten-minute presentation, you may be invited to present a poster instead. This is a good opportunity to put your work in front of others, and it should involve different techniques to those involved in making a presentation.

The first thing about posters is that your message about the research you are doing is more important than any corporate or brand image of your institution. I would avoid the habit of cluttering up your valuable piece of paper with logos, names of research units, collaborators and so on. You may find that there are certain requirements of some funding agencies and some institutions to have a clear acknowledgement of their support. These should be adhered to. But don't add unnecessary logos and associated names unless they are really needed.

Next, it is good to use graphics and large fonts. A good poster will focus on one aspect of your work, rather than trying to put everything across. There is no need for bibliographical references, and it is good to avoid jargon and complex sentences; big fonts, nice graphics and short messages. Graphical communication works best when you avoid fussy and unnecessary embellishments such as 3D, shadows, gratuitous use of colour and so on (most of the default settings in Microsoft Power-point and the like need to be changed to remove many of these features; it was developed for business presentations, not research presentations). An overriding principle is that the density of data in a graphic should be greater than the equivalent text that might alternatively be used to represent the same data. So pie charts are a complete waste of paper, because the message in a pie chart can be put across in one sentence of text. Histograms are frequently better portrayed as a list of labels and numbers. Your audience is not innumerate, and they understand the relative sizes of numbers. (You don’t need to draw me a picture to explain that 75 is much bigger than 10.) Graphics work best when every line, colour, symbol and label perform a function that is more concise than writing things out. There is some really good advice and detailed exposition on the use of graphics for conveying information by Edward Tufte; get hold of it if you can.

It is interesting to type “scientific posters” into Google. That is how I stumbled upon some useful guidance from North Carolina State University where it is emphasized that there are basic principles of scientific poster design: Focus, Graphics, Order. I like the advice given there. Also, I recommend a good PhD Blog, called the Thesis Whisperer, where there is further good advice.

To summarize, this is a good opportunity to develop a skill-set that differs from making presentations. Posters should have minimal clutter. There should be a clear focus, good use of graphics and a clear sequence of ideas. This will make it easier for observers to ask questions and for you talk about your research. Finally, it is OK to be uncertain about research that is in progress.

Guidance on delivering a paper

The purpose of a conference presentation is to tell people what your work is about, why it is important, how you went about it and what you discovered that we did not already know.

Conferences run to a tight schedule, typically allowing only ten minutes for each presentation. Find out in advance how much time you will be allotted for your presentation. In such a short period, it is impractical to put over more than three real points. Remember that the audience have your paper and that they will be able to read it later. Your aim in your presentation is simply to get them sufficiently interested in your work to generate discussion during the discussion period and to get them to want to read more, later. The golden rule is to simplify what you are trying to say and then exaggerate the points in order to generate interest. Forget the detail. Make sure that your talk progresses through a series of logical steps, so that you finish with a clear conclusion. The worst thing is to finish by saying "I was going to say something else but I have run out of time"! If you are not sure how much material will fill a ten minute presentation, practice it first with friends or colleagues.

Repetition is essential in a spoken presentation. People cough, sneeze, nod off or whatever; they miss things. The significant points must be introduced before they are made and reiterated afterwards. Towards the end of the talk, summarize the main points. People will remember most the first things and the last things that you say. Therefore, speak at your loudest and clearest when you first open your mouth. Do not fumble through notes or with trying to get your PowerPoint slides to display; get these ready beforehand. If possible, try out the room and the visual aids in a break before your talk. Also, if you are not the first speaker, you can practice talking to the particular audience by making comments or asking questions on other presentations.

If you are using slides or presentation software, do not use too many. Two or three are more than enough to fill ten minutes. Do not put lots of small text on them that cannot be read. If you are just making a summary of the main points of your paper, you should not be drawing attention to the fine detail of the data.

If you are using power-point, please avoid excessive animation and flashy colours. They serve only to distract the audience from the point of your work. (It is useful to remember that power-point was developed for business presentations, not for scientific presentations, which are very different.) Better still, do not use slides if they contain only your own notes in bullet point format. There is no need to show your notes to the audience. Doing so will only draw attention to the things you have to miss out when you run out of time. Moreover, it will be difficult to adapt your sequence and flow to suit the way that the audience appears to be reacting to your talk. Use the slides only for graphical portrayal of things that are not easy to express in words. When you are ready to start, and your power-point file is open, remember that typing the function key F5 will start the slide show; this is much easier than trying to find and click on the little icon to start the slide show, which is in a different position in different versions of power-point. Practice this on your own computer, before you get up to speak. Get used to operating power-point in slide-show mode. Some people only use it in editing mode until the day they stand up to make their presentation!

With any form of visual aid, switch it off once you have finished referring to it. (In powerpoint, simply pressing the letter B during the presentation will turn the display all black; press any other key to bring it back.) Avoid passages of text on a screen, unless you are going to keep quiet for a few minutes while people read it. Also, never stand in front of the screen. There is no point at all in putting things on the screen and then obscuring them with your body. Stand next to the screen to avoid this problem.

Finally, be yourself; do not try to stop moving about the stage or using gestures, if that feels natural, and do not force behaviours that do not suit you. You only have time to make a few points and to raise the general level of audience interest in your work. The main aim of the conference is not the presentations, but interaction with your peers.

Supply-led procurement

I am interested in how new developments to procurement and business practice will impact roles in construction projects. For example, I can see a strong and compelling case for distancing architects from the construction process even further than they are now, so that their focus would be more on the art and less on the technicalities of building. I am developing my research along the lines of Supply-led procurement (a more robust development of the industrialized building agenda). This basically means handing over responsibility for innovation (and the rewards for innovation) to the supply chain. Either architects become more technical and get involved commercially with innovative producers of technical solutions, or they step aside from the commercial process completely, and develop a more advisory role. The idea of an architect co-ordinating and certifying work in progress may become a thing of the past. Indeed, I would like to go further and suggest that construction work should not be based around labour and materials paid for on a work-in-progress basis. The supply chain has an opportunity to get its act together and become truly innovative and integrated. It may be that architects and the professions are the main obstacles to developing new models of finance, new contracting methods and new business models. What would a fit-for-purpose construction sector look like in the Third Millennium? What kind of obligations are suppliers willing to take on, in return for a closer relationship with construction clients and users, and the opportunities to introduce technological innovations without having to route their work through layers of intermediaries?

Something rotten with the state of procurement

There must be something fundamentally wrong with the procurement of construction work. A new report from The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) summarizes a twelve-month review of public procurement in Scotland. They cite work carried out by others to highlight the huge expense of construction procurement, being the sector with the highest procurement costs across Europe. They also cite evidence that procurement is slower in the UK than anywhere else in Europe apart from Greece.

There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the connection between theory and practice when it comes to transaction costs. Empirically speaking, if the costs of contracting-out are unreasonably high, then organizations would bring operations in house and carry them out within the organization, rather than going to the market. In the long run, assuming that the production costs would be the same in either case, the most efficient form of transaction would be the most competitive, and therefore would predominate. What, then, should we make of the calls for reducing transaction costs in construction? If they are too high, then why is construction not routinely an in-house activity?

Hard times

A friend of mine asked me to write something about the impact of the current financial crisis on the construction sector. What follows are my personal impressions about the threats and opportunities currently confronting the sector.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, things have panned out in a somewhat strange way. First, the impact on the construction sector was a long time coming. There were many public sector projects already in progress, which was part of the government's problem at the time. They had continued to spend on major public sector projects at considerable rate, and all those major projects in the pipeline kept construction companies in work, though at a more relaxed rate until well after the labour government was unseated in a coalition of conservatives and liberal democrats, when there was no outright majority in the 2010 general election. The new government soon discovered that the adventurous public spending by the previous administration had all but exhausted the countries reserves, so a comprehensive public spending review soon put paid to many planned construction projects. As work for the construction sector finally dried up, new major projects were announced, and the tap of public sector investment was quickly turned on again, to try to avoid too many insolvencies and consequent redundancies. Thus, while there is not a lot of work about, the public sector investment programme has maintained a low level of work that seems to have provided a buffer. But the private sector has slowed significanctly, largely through the disappearance of capital markets. Once  the full impact started to hit the construction sector, insolvencies were seen to rise much higher in the construction sector than in others, with a 20% increase in some quarters, compared with the previous year. But most of the time we seem to be seeing insolvencies running at about 10-15% higher than the previous year. Of course, these headline figures are increases, not the proportion of companies disappearing. Headline grabbers are great for creating disquiet. Normally, I would expect construction insolvencies to run at the same rate as all business sectors (contrary to popular belief). But construction insolvencies are always slightly higher in recessionary periods, as they are now. But, still,the vast majority of businesses are continuing to trade, although they would prefer to be busier.

Few developers can raise capital from banks, because the banks do not have any. Clearly, this is a very lean period for the construction sector.  Construction workers are being laid off and a proportion of business are disappearing. Since most work is sub-contracted, the sector is very resilient. Those contractors and suppliers with workflow are now in an odd situation, becaue if they are making profits, there is a real problem in terms of what to do with their reserves. Contractors typically manage their projects so that there is a positive cash flow, ensuring that payments out are always some weeks behind payments received. Few people seem to notice that this means contractors do not need to invest in projects; their clients do. This positive cash flow means that contractors with projects have surplus cash to invest, typically in developments of their own. But in such an austere period, the markets into which they sell their own developments are somewhat moribund. Since this is often quite lucrative, times are hard. Moreover, trade contractors who design and manufacture the things that they install are reliant on investment in their processes, in a way that others in the sector may not be. And they are also hit with the double problem of very competitive pricing levels and nowhere to invest surpluses. Since the banks are not lending, there is not much happening in the private sector capital markets. So those with surpluses appear to be  shepherding their money for now, to see them through continuing lean patches. What development there is, is relying on capital, rather than debt financing. 

In the longer term, locally and globally, I feel that there is chance the construction sector might be able to finally move away from being a cash cow. If we are to make this into a 21st century business sector, it is essential that we abandon the Victorian business models and ideals that have served us so well throughout the 20th century. I sense that there is an opportunity for businesses to take more of a stake in the things that they are producing. If we can get contractors and trade contractors to invest in the things that they make, and take a greater proportion of their payment after completion, then we shall see greater incentives and rewards for innovative (and, perhaps, sustainable) products and practices. And what better time than now to enable large, successful companies to pump-prime their clients' developments with cash? Many more contractors are establishing capital arms to invest in their own and their clients' projects. This is interesting. If it continues, we could see the end of a business sector based on large volumes of cash being pumped around construction sites, and the growth of significant investment-driven construction companies which will be able to weather financial storms as successfully as any other business sector.

So, who knows what will happen? Even in this difficult time, there are great opportunities. One thing is for sure, as someone once said, "if you always do what you have always done, you'll always get what you've always got".

Complex, commercial, contractual relations

It is interesting how much research in our field is predicated on the assumption that good process leads to good buildings. If this were so, surely there would be few poor quality buildings by now? After all, we are surrounded on all sides by advice and guidance on processes of all kinds. There are British Standards, International Standards, Codes of Practice, Guidance Documents of all kinds. Yet still we produce poor quality buildings. Clearly, we are dealing with a level of complexity in construction that is difficult and uncertain. Perhaps the idea that good process leads to good buildings would form a useful basis on which to critique a lot of the research that has been published in construction management? After all, it has long been accepted in organizational theory circles that there is more to an effective organization than its structure. So much so, that organizational structure is a rare breed of research paper. Or perhaps they have just changed their vocabulary so that I don't notice what passes these days for organizational structure!

The complexity in construction is not necessarily technical, but organizational. Because of the way that the processes are organized, there is a need for diverse skills, and it is important for the purposes of continuity of work and the development of specialized skills that these diverse disciplines are typically found in different firms. To bring a team together means that contracts are important, because each different group of skills comes from a different business. And we are talking about business, therefore commercial interests play an important role in colouring the behaviour of the parties, even if they are exercising professionalized roles. Finally, because the planning, design, construction and occupation of a building occupy many years, the continuity of relationships can be very important. Thus, the kind of organisational problems we face are characterized as complex, commercial, contractual relations.

Anyhow, today's realization was that buildings are just buildings and not, in themselves, good or bad. Good and bad are judgements that reside in people, not characteristics that reside in buildings. More important, in my view, is that when we judge something to be good or bad, successful or unsuccessful, we are typically comparing what we can observe to our expectation. If our expectations are met, then we are more likely to be satisfied. I have long been aware that this is why marketing is so important for business; good marketing is designed to adjust and deal with our expectations, so that we are more likely to be satisfied with certain products, despite their qualities and characteristics, rather than because of them. So if expectations are the important thing, then clear communication is essential. Within the construction sector, we are used to problems of conflict and dispute. Perhaps these, too, can be laid at the door of inadequate communication leading to unmet expectations? Information asymmetry is an important idea that underpins this. It is inevitable in a complex commercial environment that one party will have more information and knowledge about the transaction than the other. Often, the supply side has the upper hand when it comes to information asymmetry, but if the demand side employ professional consultants and design what is to be fabricated, then perhaps the result would be that the demand side has more information than the supply side about important aspects of the job.

Perhaps the purpose of communication in complex, commercial, contractual relations is to reduce information asymmetry and ensure that expectations on both sides are reasonable. This would lead to a hypothesis that information symmetry should lead to greater satisfaction. Businesses expend lots of effort in precisely this area. Conflict flows from dissatisfaction and it is expensive and destructive.

Above all, in construction the transaction is very difficult because the demand side basically requires space, whereas the supply side can only provide boundaries to space. I think this is the interface between architecture and building. We buy buildings because we want space, not because we want walls. No wonder there is information asymmetry, when we have to buy something other than what we want in order to get what we want!

Noisy trees?

Reading this week's New Scientist, I came across the phrase "an objective reality that exists independently of our beliefs" in relation to the stupidity of the idea that the world was ever flat (Feedback, New Scientist. 211(2829), 64). It got me thinking. My world used to be flat when I was quite young. That "model" became useless when I learned a bit more, and better explanations made sense as my childish observations and experience grew. It struck me that there may be scientists, particularly in the Natural Sciences, who may claim to believe in an objective reality, even though they themselves contribute to emergent explanations that help to make sense of increasingly contradictory or complex observations. Social scientists seem more ready to acknowledge that there are no objective facts; merely a provisional, negotiated consensus. This reminded me of that old philosophical chestnut, "if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?" The article made me realize that I now have a view on that. It doesn't; because noise is an experience and a perception. Those who think it does, perhaps, believe in objective reality that exists independently of beliefs.

Twitter

Am I going to regret this? I have singed up for Twitter. As if there weren't enough online services to keep updating...
Find me at @arjibarj

Construction Management and Economics

There are so many networking tools to choose from these days, it is bewildering. I have been in Facebook for a long time, since very early in its life, and it is best for keeping up with family and friends, I have decided. I tried to set up a Facebook page for the journal, Construction Management and Economics, but the nature of FB interaction seemed to trivialize everything. Too many people simply clicked that they "Liked" it, and moved on. There was no sense of engagement. So now I am trying to disengage gracefully without losing those people who liked that kind of connection.

Episode 2 in trying to get a Social Networking is to set up a WordPress blog kind of forum. This looks very nice and was relatively easy to configure so that it looks professional and enables the kind of content that I had in mind - forthcoming events (including those that do not get published in the list in the journal), free download papers (one per issue), ideas and suggestions for improving the quality of submitted papers and of reviews, and so on. Much of this material has already appeared here in Blogspot, so there is a danger of recycling old stuff. On the other hand, there is a danger that the material is too dissipated across different sites, so I need to collect it in a more focused way.

One interesting thing that worries me is how little people really engage with these things. After a couple of weeks of the WordPress site being live, only a handful of people have signed up to receive updates from the site, despite the number of people looking at the site being in the hundreds. I have received encouraging emails from colleagues who have browsed it and see it as valuable, but they have not signed up to have current content pushed to their email boxes. WordPress will compile a weekly digest, but few people seem to want to make this tiny level of commitment. Also, there is only one post, so far, from someone other than me. What is holding people back? Why so shy?

If you are interested in encouraging sites like the new WordPress site, I think you should take part. Think about it; have a look and see what you can contribute. Even if you simply sign up for email updates, it will make it seem more worthwhile.

I guess, though, that if you are already connected to me through LinkedIn or Facebook, you will already get notifications every time anything is posted there, so perhaps I am worrying too much! LinkedIn, particularly, should help to garner a lot more interest in the journal. Yesterday I passed the threshold of being connected to 1000 contacts in LinkedIn, so that means that everything I post in WordPress is immediately notified to all of those people. Managing these things requires a bit of attention, but hopefully not too much. It is very telling that I could only set all this up in August, when things in the day-job are slightly quieter.

And what are we to make of Google+? Yet another social networking opportunity. Do we really need another one?

Case study research

I was quite pleased to hear about the new edition of The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. In particular, there is a chapter in there by Bent Flyvberg on Case Study research, which should be quite helpful, as it dispels many myths about case study research:

1. First misunderstanding: General, theoretical knowledge is more valuable than concrete case knowledge.
2. Second misunderstanding: One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development.
3. Third misunderstanding: The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, while other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building.
4. Fourth misunderstanding: The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions.
5. Fifth misunderstanding: It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies.

If you are contemplating research that might benefit from a case study approach, then I recommend this book most strongly.

Reviewing research papers

There are several posts in this blog about reviewing research papers, and it is a theme that constantly crops up, both in relation to refereeing a journal paper for an editor of a journal, an in relation to building up the elemental parts of a literature review. As I have said before, these are two distinctive activities.

Many students struggle to make critical evaluations of published papers, and there are many reasons why they might find this difficult at first. One way of approaching the task could be to try to focus on whether a paper is making an interesting and useful contribution to our collective understanding. I think that what we are looking for is signs that author of a paper is clever enough to provide a persuasive case. What I mean by this is to look for evidence in a paper that the author is knowledgeable, has a good understanding of the issues, can put together an argument and can make judgements.

In order to be convinced that an author is knowledgeable, I would look for evidence that he/she knows about the generalities and specifics of the topic. To be convinced that the author has an understanding, I would try to find evidence of different views being weighed in the balance and ideas being applied to examples, especially I would look for the use of metaphors and analogies. In thinking about whether the paper has a strong argument, I would look for the use of logic and the sequence of ideas. The language of argument is interesting, and this is closely related to grammar, vocabulary and logic. I do not find the use of jargon or inflated diction particularly compelling. But plain language in straightforward words is often an element of a good argument. It should be clear. Finally, in looking to see whether an author is making judgements, there should be evidence of discrimination in the kind of sources being relied on to form the foundations for the work, and judgement in the nature of the conclusions as well as the all of the choices about what to include and what to exclude in putting the paper together.

Some common errors frequently reveal weak papers and unclear thinking. Papers typically follow this structure:

• Abstract - summarizing the whole paper including the specific findings
• Introduction - explaining what the paper is about
• Literature review - dealing with what we collectively already know, specifically, but not exclusively, in terms of past research
• Possibly some empirical work - not all papers fit into the category of empirically-based research
• Analysis and/or discussion - empirically-based papers would separate the analysis from the data, then all papers would include discussion of what all this leads us to
• Conclusions - explaining what this all means, perhaps with an outline of the parameters of the research and how that restricts the application of the findings, and usually with suggestions about what certain groups of people might do differently as a result of this research, whether these groups are scholars, practitioners or policy-makers

In weak papers authors often get the sections mixed up, probably because a weak paper will not really lead to any conclusions. Thus, I often find that the conclusions only really summarize the paper, the abstract introduces, rather than summarizes, and the introduction jumps straight into a general literature review before the detailed and focused part of the literature. As a result, in my editorial capacity, I often suggest to authors that they should move the introduction section to the literature review, move the abstract to the introduction, move the conclusions to the abstract, and then try to write some proper conclusions that convey something about what all this means. If they cannot do that, then the work is not really good enough to be called research, I would venture to suggest.

It might be an interesting exercise to see if you can find a paper where the sections are mixed up in this way. It would certainly give new researchers the confidence to take a critical stance when it comes to reviewing papers for their literature review!

Research methods in social sciences

One useful resource for learning about research methods in the social sciences is the Research Methods Knowledge Base. It provides a really helpful introduction to many of the basic concepts that are useful in defining research. Particularly useful is the section on the language of research, providing clear explanations for what is meant by phrases such as "unit of analysis". Have a look and see if you find it helpful.

What editors look for in referee reports

A recent discussion in orgtheory.net sparked some interest. I was particularly interested in the views from editors of various journals such as Organization Science, Organization Studies, Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, American Sociological Review, and Administrative Science Quarterly.

If you are interested in improving the way that you carry out reviews, there is some excellent guidance there. I added a note, as follows:

This discussion provides an excellent presentation of the diverse and multiple aspects of a good review. In Construction Management and Economics, we have also been dealing with how best to advise referees. One thing of vital importance, as mentioned by several of the editors, is to ensure that the referees deal with the content rather than the presentation/style of the paper. To help focus attention on what matters, I have recently developed a more explicit description of what I mean when I say “scientific content” because in an applied and practical field like construction management, it can be difficult for some people to distinguish research from practice, let alone content from style.

I am increasingly asking referees to consider this definition of the scientific approach when the write their reviews: “The observation of certain specific phenomena within a theoretical framework in order to develop better explanations that improve our collective understanding.”

Specifically, I want to avoid papers that merely report on specific phenomena. I want referees to tell me whether the papers they review are explicit about the extent to which a paper deals with the phenomena being observed, the underlying concepts and theoretical framework being used, the existing explanations being critiqued or found wanting, and the new explanations being proffered that add to our pool of knowledge. And all of this has to be done within the conventions of what a paper in this field looks like.

This is a complicated and difficult issue, and the way we put our requests to referees is constantly developing. What makes a paper acceptable is conformance with the customs and practice of the particular field in terms of: how arguments are presented, how data is used,how research is carried out, formatting of papers. The overriding criterion is clarity. These are the issues that I wish referees to guide me on when I am deciding the fate of a paper.

Crucially, reviewing a paper for a journal is clearly not the same thing as writing a critique for a literature review.

Networking on the web

There is a growing number of tools for networking on the web. Facebook is great for social networking, but it can be very distracting and difficult to manage. There are so many facets to it that it is probably inappropriate for direct communication focused on scientific exchanges. Indeed, there is a group in Facebook for construction management researchers. But it may make you despair of the human condition, because it is filled with trivial requests from people who are not researchers asking questions of an entirely random nature and with no sense of who their questions are directed at. It is pretty hopeless and probably needs to be closed down, yet there are more than 500 members on it from all over the world. Most of them just seem desperate to find someone to talk to, or seek a forum for advertising their wares. It fails where other tools succeed.

In our field, probably the most successful tool to date is the Co-operative Network for Building Researchers (CNBR). This has been going for 21 years and has more than 2500 members globally. It is only an email network, but it is really successful and enables some very useful discussions. It also enables unavoidable chit-chat and distractions, but not too much.

There are plenty of other places where we can develop networks, if we wish to. Academia.edu, for example. I have a profile there at http://reading.academia.edu/WillHughes and this enables me to connect with people who share my research interests. There is not the opportunity for chit-chat like there is on CNBR, and it is less intrusive in the daily diet of emails (if you set it it up right). You can upload papers and books, presentations, CVs, all sorts of academic outputs, and by tagging them with keywords, you become visible to like-minded people around the globe. This is a good way of finding new research contacts.

A new service is Mendeley. This looks like an excellent tool. Primarily it is useful for managing bibliographies. But it also enables the setting up of groups, whether for your own research team, for a department, for a global group of people who share similar interests. One really useful thing about this service is that unlike academia.edu, you don’t need to type in your publications from scratch, because it connects to many bibliographical databases and imports the details of papers that you identify as yours. It is quite quick to set up a profile and although I have only been looking at it for a day, it appears to have some really useful functions.

If networking with a mixture of practitioners and academics, I would recommend LinkedIn, because it has quite a good reach and does not involve all the distracting “fun stuff” that you get in facebook. It is a good way to get connected to all sorts of people, but if you are only looking for academic contacts, it is probably not for you.

Finally, if all you want to do is let off steam every so often and have a rant about something, get yourself a BLOG! I have found this to be useful for more than just the occasional rant. I can use it to collect advice and guidance that I give to students and to authors of papers in the journal. Over the months and years, a collection of guidance notes is accumulating here, and it is very easy to point people to short things that I have already written, which saves me from writing them again. I can return to edit old posts, and also place here contributions that I may have developed for other reasons (this post, for example, started out life as a contribution to an email discussion).

There is a lot to be said for using the appropriate tool for the job. It is highly unlikely that we will find one service that fulfils all aspirations. We need different tools for different tasks. Join me in some of these services, and we can explore these things together and see what we can achieve!