Search results

In the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the move from government to governance has been well documented (Stoker, 1998; Rhodes, 1996, 1997). In the global North, governance is understood as a response to complexity and a recognition that many problems cannot be solved by government alone, whereas in democracies across the North and South, there is a concern to address the democratic deficit and [re]legitimize the state. In both contexts, new governance spaces and opportunities have emerged for non-governmental actors to engage in the process. Interest in community or “third sector” participation has spread around the globe, albeit with very different expressions in different contexts, and in many cases at the insistence of international financial institutions. Deacon (2007, p. 15) describes such global trends as “the contested terrain of emerging global governance” in which he includes both international non-governmental organizations and transnational social movements. Although this shift represents new opportunities, the extent to which the spaces for participation offer a new vision of the public domain is contested (Fung & Wright, 2003; Cornwall & Coelho, 2007).

This paper aims to consider an “-ological” (ontological, epistemological and methodological) triad in the context of construction management (CM) research, and to explore the triad in terms of ontological/epistemological viewpoints, paradigmatic approaches to CM research and, ultimately, CM methodological decisions.

Derivation of critical narrative and graphical models using literature synthesis combined with experiential, methodological views of the authors.

Conceptions of ontology, epistemology and methodology (the “ological-triad”) demonstrate high variability – resultantly, their use in CM research is equally inconsistent, sometimes questionable and, in the extreme, sometimes overlooked. Accordingly, this study concludes that greater recognition of the “ological-triad” is called for in CM research, especially at the design stage. A framework for doing this is proffered.

Combined study of the “ologies” within CM research uniquely consolidates previous disparate knowledge into a single, cogent, subject-specific discourse that, inter-alia, both informs and illuminates CM research challenges. It also encourages critical debate on the issues highlighted.