Revisiting basics: theoretically-grounded interesting research that addresses challenges that matter

Abstract

Revisiting basics: theoretically-grounded interesting research that addresses challenges that matter In this editorial, I reflect on my last 6 years as associate editor for Construction Management and Economics to explain common problems found in manuscripts rejected in our peer-review process. These issues highlight the importance of engaging with current conversations in and related to the field, and the need to strengthen our contributions so that we as a collective community can advance and challenge fundamental assumptions in the ways we think about our research questions. To do so, recommendations are made on the use of citations of previous research, and the logic of rhetorical moves in a typical article so that the research framing in the frontend and the discussion of results in the back-end can more convincingly, coherently and comprehensively emphasize the news value of studies published in this journal. By returning to the basics of what editors and reviewers look for in papers, I also make the case for finding a balance between theoretical rigour and practical engagement with challenges that matter in our field. It is my vision, as incoming editor-in-chief, to encourage not just strong theoretical engagement in the manuscripts we accept, but also to start interesting conversations around subject matters relevant to our field.

Towards methodological adventure in cost overrun research: linking process and product

“…Several studies, including Fellows and Liu (2015), have noted that the positivist/reductionist approach to carrying out construction research, aligns more with the natural and engineering sciences. The engineering ontology/world view possibly explains why Construction Management research has a well-documented history of research primarily focused on identifying factors that impact project performance improvements (Chan, 2020). Panas and Pantouvakis (2010), investigated the various forms of positivist approach mostly deployed in construction productivity studies.…”

“…More recently, Chan's (2020) editorial reported that the majority of 350 manuscripts received by 'Construction Management and Economics' were primarily based on 'self-perception and self-reporting questionnaires surveys', and as such rarely made it through to peer-review (p. 2). These figures indicate that construction industry researchers continue to tow the positivist logic, to understand the complexity of socially derived organizational issues.…”

“…Surveys cannot adequately answer how or why questions relevant for studying what goes on in practice, rather are more amenable for initial exploration or descriptive studies that ask 'what', 'when', and 'where' research questions. Chan (2020) revealed that due to the trend that the majority of manuscripts in the study of construction phenomena are survey-type research, editors take the view that surveys are commonplace, and therefore do not constitute the significantly original contributions. The restrictive logico-deductive and highly structured nature of survey methods negate the wholesomeness relevant to investigate and understand the system dynamics of interrelated processes that lead to cost overruns in construction projects.…”

“…(Dainty, 2008;Fellows and Liu 2015). Chan (2020) observed that early research in construction management was largely influenced by the 'engineering style of thinking' (p. 2). Unlike more established research domains, Dainty (2008) was of the view that construction management is yet to have a standard philosophical/methodological orientation.…”

“…Rather, construction research tends to build on the traditional singular philosophical assumptions of other related natural and social science research, resulting in the adoption of wide range philosophies and methods. This stance is reiterated by Chan (2020), who opined that:…”