Crook, D

Rooke, JA

Seymour, D

English

University of Salford Institutional Repository

The Role of Theory in Construction Management:  A Call for Debate.David Seymour, Darryl Crook and John Rooke, Published as:Seymour, D., Crook, D. & Rooke, J. (1997) 'The Role of Theory in Construction Management:  A Call for Debate,' Construction Management and Economics, 15(1):117-119.In  this  short  paper  we  intend to  express  certain  questions  about  the  theoretical  basis of construction management  as an academic discipline and,  by implication,  its relationship to construction management practice. It is hoped in this way to stimulate a debate in these pages which will contribute both to the academic status of the discipline and to the usefulness of its contributions to practice. It is our feeling that such a debate is long overdue and that as the leading journal in the field, CM&E provides the logical arena in which to conduct it.  In a recent study of the first ten years of the journal, Betts and Lansley (1993) outline the development  of  the  discipline.  They conclude  that  one  of  the  characteristics  of  a  mature discipline is a body of objective knowledge in the form of a theoretical base, and suggests that ‘when a  subject  begins to  experience research into  its  research […]  this signifies that  an underlying theory about the discipline is starting to evolve’ (op cit p.222).Betts and Lansley are less than satisfied with the extent to which this has taken place in the pages  of  CM&E,  suggesting  that  ‘the  discipline is  becoming rather  inward-looking,  self-referential and lacking in its  guidance from and contribution to  theory’  (ibid).  This,  they acknowledge, may be compensated for by the empirical nature of the research which is being carried out. They find  that ‘seventy percent of the papers [studied] are based on original or nearly original data gathered through case studies or as truly empirical data’ (op cit p.241).In classifying the contribution to theory of published works in construction management, their study adopted a five point scale, starting at ‘Insights. The contribution lies largely in the data […] presented—the papers  do  not  generate  new models or  theories’.  The second level is ‘Model  testing  or  fitting. The  testing  of  statistical  or  organizational  models’,  moving to ‘Model building.  Developing complex (largely static)  new models […] for forecasting and decision making’. The next level is ‘System building. Developing complex (largely dynamic or interactive) systems […] for operations management and decision making’. Finally there is ‘Theory  building/modifying.  Development  or  modification  of  theory,  for  example  whilst application of mainstream management theory to construction would fall in [sic] model testing category, developments of that theory to fit construction would fall here’ (op cit p.245).Two  interesting  points  arise  from  this  classification:  first,  that  there  is  a  hierarchy  of contributions to  the discipline, and second, that  ‘theory’ within construction management is only produced at one level of this hierarchy. It is this level of theory building/modifying that they suggest has been inadequately addressed by the construction management community.We welcome these calls to  develop the theoretical base of the discipline and agree that this issue must be addressed to a greater degree than it currently is. However, we see a prior need to enquire as to what the nature of this theoretical base should be. If construction management is to  develop into a rigorous academic discipline, the nature of its theoretical base, and the methods used to arrive at its theory, are crucial issues. As an empirical science, ‘designed to yield verifiable knowledge of human group  life and human conduct’  (Blumer 1969 p.21), construction  management  must  meet  a  fundamental  criterion.  This  is  well  expressed  by Blumer:‘an empirical science presupposes the existence of an empirical world. Such an empirical world exists as something available for observation, study, and analysis. It  stands over against the scientific observer, with a character that has to be dug out through observation, study and analysis. This empirical world must forever be the central point of concern. It is the point of departure and the point of return in the case of empirical science. It is the testing ground for any assertions made about the empirical world.  “Reality” for empirical science only exists in the empirical world, can be sought only there, and can be verified only there […]’ (op cit p.21, italics in original)In other  words,  the nature of construction management practice,  that  is what  construction management ‘is’, what it means to ‘do’ construction management, must be the starting point, the focus, the culmination and the arbitor of all theoretical activity. We have previously suggested that construction management is dominated by research carried out under a ‘rationalist paradigm’. This paradigm has important implications for the type of theory seen as important in construction management, and also the methods of investigation used by researchers in this field. Thus, it is assumed that the reality of management practice can be captured in the form of a single objective account,  taking the form of a generic causal representation of the ‘system’ (Seymour and Rooke 1995). It appears to be something of this nature  which Betts  an Wood-Harper  (1994)  have in mind when they quote  Hammer and Champy’s definition of a business process as “a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output  that  is of value to  the customer.” This kind of theory building is facilitated by various forms of survey research, which typically produce statistical data relating correlations between variables.Our suggested alternative is to concentrate upon the interpretative methods which researchers and managers use to make sense of the world. This approach yields an investigation which is primarily concerned  with  meaning,  rather  than  causality and  produces  an  account  which recognises the respective viewpoints of practitioners in the process. It is our belief that such an account  better  reflects  the  realities  of  construction  management  as  a  practice.  It  is  our perception that investigation into the nature of construction management, as a practice, has not taken place. Construction management, as a discipline, has simply accepted without significant question one particular meaning of ‘theory,’ and one particular method for arriving at  that theory.In the two works cited above (Betts and Lansley, 1993; Betts and Wood-Harper, 1994) we see a distinction being drawn between empirical research, which does not contribute to theory and ‘scientific’ research, which does. In the absence of any discussion of the nature of the theory being advocated, we assume that, in line with the conceptions of the rationalistic paradigm, it is intended to be similar to that found in the natural sciences: global, objective and verifiable. If this is not the case, then the onus rests with the authors to explain what theory should consist of.According to  Schutz (1971), the method of scientific theorising involves the suspension, or bracketing,  of  the  theorist’s  awareness  of  his or  her  personal  situation.  This  enables the achievement of an objective, depersonalised knowledge. This anonimity of the researcher is guaranteed by the creation of a  theoretical framework,  every term of which is empirically accountable and in conformity with the tenets  of formal logic.  In order  that  anonymity is maintained, the theorist must eschew the use of unexamined common sense concepts in his or her explanations.We suggest that construction management is not amenable to such an approach. The discipline of construction management is crucially different from that of a natural science, in that the our ‘objects of study’ are people. As such they attribute meaning both to what they do, and to the presence  of  the  researcher.  In  the  natural  sciences,  the  objects  of  study do  not  attribute meaning, allowing the community of theorists to impose its own meanings upon phenomena. In management research, meaning is intersubjectively created and managed between researcher and researched, in an iterative interpretive process. In such a process, the identity and style of the researcher are integral to the production of data. Furthermore, this process is impossible without the use of the common sense concepts and methods which we all use and take for granted in our everyday lives.The difficulty is compounded since the discipline intends to produce advice for practitioners. This requires theorists to  make value judgements, a process logically incompatable with the attempt to acheive a depersonalised objectivity. We contend that insufficient attention has been paid to the seperation of these conflicting aims.In our view, research in construction management has tended to underestimate, or ignore the importance of the interpretive process.   Thus, the all-important analysis which goes into the identification of problems, the formulating of questions, the catagorisation of informants and respondents, the attributing of significance to  actions and answers, are all glossed over and hidden.   The effect of this is that the ‘data,’ which are often treated with explicit mathmatical analyses,  have  already  been  subjected  to  a  sophisticated  and  unexamined  process  of preparation, before the reported research commences. The interpretive methods which researchers in construction management use to investigate the world are no different from those used by managers, or for that matter, from the methods of ordinary members of society.  Indeed,  since the vast  majority of our  data  consists of what managers tell us, the relationship between the manager and researcher is best characterised as one between an instructor  and instructee.  The only advantage we can reasonably claim as academics, is that we have leisure to think more closely about our methods and our findings than the managers we research. The results of such activity simply do not represent theories in the scientific sense.This is not to  say that construction management cannot support  theoretical work, or that  it cannot become a rigorous academic discipline, with accepted and objective means of ‘finding out.’ Research which acknowledges its interpretive context has an important contribution to make  in  this  regard.  However,  in  order  that  this  be  achieved,  we  must  reconsider  our conceptions of ‘theory’, ‘rigour’, ‘objectivity’, etc. What is needed we would argue, is not so much the creation of new and better causal models, but a logical analysis of the concepts which have been used to build these models.In  conclusion,  while welcoming recent  attempts  to  assess  the  theoretical  maturity  of  the discipline, we have questioned certain pre-theoretical assumptions upon which these attempts are based.   Our intention, as stated at the outset,  has been to  provoke a response.   If we endorse Betts  and Lansley’s assertion that  the existence of a theoretical base signifies the maturity of a discipline, we would add that a further indicator of such maturity is the presence of scholarly debate in its leading journals.ReferencesBETTS, M. & LANSLEY, P., (1993), ‘Construction Management and Economics: A review of the first ten years’, in Construction Management and Economics, 11:221-245.BETTS,  M.  &  WOOD-HARPER,  T.,  (1994),  ‘Re-engineering  construction:  a  new management research agenda’, in Construction Management and Economics, 12:551-556.BLUMER,  H.,  (1969),  Symbolic  Interactionism—Perspective  and  Method,  Prentice  Hall International, London.CME, (1996), ‘Aims and Scope’, in Construction Management and Economics, 14:1.SCHUTZ,  A.,  (1971),  ‘Common Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action,’  in Collected Papers 1, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.SEYMOUR,  D.E.,  & ROOKE,  J.A.,  (1995),  ‘The  culture  of  the  industry and culture  of research’, in Construction Management and Economics, 13:511-523.

The role of theory in construction management: a call for debate

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Salford Institutional Repository