Preserving methodological consistency, a reply to Raftery, McGeorge and Walters
Rooke, JA, Seymour, D and Crook, D 1997, 'Preserving methodological consistency, a reply to Raftery, McGeorge and Walters' , Construction Management and Economics, 15 (5) , pp. 491-494.
|PDF - Accepted Version |
Download (75kB) | Preview
Raftery, J., McGeorge, D. and Walters, M. (1977) Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 291-297, criticise Seymour, D.E. and Rooke, J.A. (1995) Construction Management and Economics 13(6), 511-523 for setting out battle lines in their use of the terms rationalist and interpretive paradigms and argue that such dichotomies lead to a degeneration in research standards. Sharing their concern for research standards, in reply, we argue that Raftery et al.'s plea for methodological liberalism will itself undermine standards. Different research methods are required for different research purposes and are to be evaluated according to different criteria. These criteria must be made explicit. We state our own research purposes and make an initial attempt to set out some criteria against which we would wish our own research to be judged.
|Uncontrolled Keywords:||Research Methodology; Research Paradigms; Methodological Debate|
|Themes:||Subjects / Themes > H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor > HD0028 - 0070 Management. Industrial Management|
Subjects outside of the University Themes
|Schools:||Colleges and Schools > College of Science & Technology > School of the Built Environment|
Colleges and Schools > College of Science & Technology > School of the Built Environment > Salford Centre for Research & Innovation (SCRI)
|Journal or Publication Title:||Construction Management and Economics|
|Publisher:||Taylor & Francis|
|Depositing User:||Users 29196 not found.|
|Date Deposited:||26 Nov 2009 15:46|
|Last Modified:||20 Aug 2013 17:01|
Document DownloadsMore statistics for this item...
Actions (login required)
|Edit record (repository staff only)|