Conclusions
This chapter has discussed the implications of the apparent narrowness of the
construction management research community’s methodological outlook and the
implications for understanding of the practice of construction. The construction
management field appears to be firmly rooted within the positivist tradition. It has
shown both an entrenched adherence to positivist methods within the community, and
a significant reliance on open-ended interviews by those adopting qualitative methods.
Clearly, no claims can be made as to the broader significance of these findings
as they do not provide evidence of methodological trends. However, given the methodological
debates of the mid-1990s, they do provide limited evidence of an apparent
reluctance to embrace paradigmatic change. Moreover, they present a view of a
community reluctant to adopt the kinds of radical qualitative research methods
which could provide richer insights into industry practice. The apparent lack of methodological
diversity, coupled to an apparent lack of adventure in interpretative research
design, suggests a research community rooted in methodological conservatism and
disconnected from the debates going on in many of the fields from which it draws.
An enduring adherence to the positivist paradigm will do little to enable construction
management researchers to grasp the meaning of social action from the perspective
of the actors involved.