Ethnographic Theory-Building Research in Construction

Traditional construction research methods have enabled focused but narrow advances in our understanding of industry phenomena. While contributing new insight, these methods are often not adequate to enable understanding of the complex interactions that lead to many of the industry's pervasive social and technical problems. One means of addressing these limitations is for the construction research community to complement prevalent quantitative and case study methodologies with qualitative theory-building methodologies, specifically ethnographic studies or those based on detailed and long-term observation of project environments. This paper identifies the critical need for theory-building methods and their methodological conventions, challenges, and opportunities. Specifically, the paper focuses on data collection in ethnographic studies and analysis of that data through the use of grounded theory. Through better under- standing and more widespread use of theory-building methods, the construction research community can provide a needed complement to the current prevailing methods and greatly aid the maturation of our important field.

[1]  Andrew R.J. Dainty,et al.  A grounded theory of women's career under-achievement in large UK construction companies , 2000 .

[2]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[3]  Rob Shields,et al.  Innovation in clean-room construction: a case study of co-operation between firms , 2003 .

[4]  John Rooke,et al.  The Role of Ethnography in the Implementation of Lean Construction , 2001 .

[5]  W. Whyte Street corner society : the social structure of an Italian slum , 1946 .

[6]  J. Barker Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams , 1993 .

[7]  R. Gephart The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking , 1993 .

[8]  R CarlilePaul A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries , 2002 .

[9]  Madhu C. Reddy,et al.  Coordinating heterogeneous work: Information and representation in medical care , 2001, ECSCW.

[10]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[11]  N. Denzin Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook , 1978 .

[12]  John Raftery,et al.  Breaking up methodological monopolies: a multi-paradigm approach to construction management research , 1997 .

[13]  Diana E. Forsythe,et al.  “It's Just a Matter of Common Sense”: Ethnography as Invisible Work , 1999, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[14]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Putting ethnography to work: the case for a cognitive ethnography of design , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Kathleen L. Gregory,et al.  Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. , 1983 .

[16]  Karen Locke,et al.  Appealing Work: An Investigation of How Ethnographic Texts Convince , 1993 .

[17]  Robert I. Sutton,et al.  Maintaining Norms about Expressed Emotions: The Case of Bill Collectors , 1991 .

[18]  John Raftery,et al.  Price stability and the business cycle: UK construction bidding patterns 1970-91 , 1997 .

[19]  James H. Garrett,et al.  CAD usage in an architectural office: from observations to active assistance , 1996 .

[20]  Mark S. Ackerman,et al.  Just talk to me: a field study of expertise location , 1998, CSCW '98.

[21]  Peter Lloyd,et al.  Ethnographic description of design networks , 1998 .

[22]  Victor E. Sanvido,et al.  Constructability Information Classification Scheme , 1995 .

[23]  Andreas Floros Phelps LEAN INFORMATION FLOW IN COMPLEX HEALTHCARE PROJECTS AND THE ROLE OF THE “INTEGRATOR” ROLE AS INFORMATION FLOW MANAGER , 2008 .

[24]  J. Rooke,et al.  Planning for claims: an ethnography of industry culture , 2004 .