Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 13 results ...

Brandon, P S and Ribeiro, F L (1998) A knowledge-based system for assessing applications for house renovation grants. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 57-69.

Chau, K W, Raftery, J and Walker, A (1998) Note - The baby and the bathwater: research methods in construction management. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 99-104.

Chinyio, E A, Olomolaiye, P O, Kometa, S T and Harris, F C (1998) A needs-based methodology for classifying construction clients and selecting contractors. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 91-8.

Dawood, N N (1998) Estimating project and activity duration: a risk management approach using network analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 41-8.

Edwards, P J and Bowen, P A (1998) Practices, barriers and benefits of risk management process in building services cost estimation: comment. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 105-8.

Harriss, C (1998) Why research without theory is not research: a reply to Seymour et al.. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 113-6.

Kumaraswamy, M M and Chan, D W M (1998) Contributors to construction delays. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 17-29.

McDonald, B and Smithers, M (1998) Implementing a waste management plan during the construction phase of a project: a case study. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 71-8.

Noyce, D A and Hanna, A S (1998) Planned and unplanned schedule compression: the impact on labour. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 79-90.

Ranasinghe, M (1998) Risk management in the insurance industry: insights for the engineering construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 31-9.

Seymour, D E, Rooke, J D and Crook, D (1998) The role of theory in construction management: reply to Runeson. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 109-12.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: management theory; positivism; research methodology; research paradigm
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372655
  • Abstract:

    In his comment on Seymour, D.E., Crook, D.J. and Rooke, J.A. (1997) Construction Management and Economics, 15, 117-19 (Construction Management and Economics, 15, 299-302) argues that positivism provides the best insurance against bad research in construction management studies. He claims that positivist methods of theory building have been modified sufficiently to cope with the demands of management research. He accuses Seymour et al. of being anti-scientific in questioning the viability of these methods. In this short reply, we refute these assertions, pointing out some remaining obstacles to the application of positivist methods to management research.

Tam, C M and Fung, I W H (1998) Effectiveness of safety management strategies on safety performance in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 49-51.

Wang, C-H and Huang, Y-C (1998) Controlling activity interval times in LOB scheduling. Construction Management and Economics, 16(01), 5-16.