No abstract

No abstract

This paper explores the mapping of the environmental assessment process onto design and construction processes. A comparative case study method is used to identify and account for variations in the 'fit' between these two processes. The analysis compares eight BREEAM projects (although relevant to LEED, GreenStar, etc.) and distinguishes project-level characteristics and dynamics. Drawing on insights from literature on sustainable construction and assessment methods, an analytic framework is developed to examine the effect of clusters of project and assessmentlevel elements on different types of fit (tight, punctual and bolt-on). Key elements distinguishing between types include: prior working experience with project team members, individual commitment to sustainable construction, experience with sustainable construction, project continuity, project-level ownership of the assessment process, and the nature and continuity of assessor involvement. Professionals with 'sustainable' experience used BREEAM judiciously to support their designs (along with other frameworks), but less committed professionals tended to treat it purely as an assessment method. More attention needs to be paid to individual levels of engagement with, and understanding of, sustainability in general (rather than knowledge of technical solutions to individual credits), to ownership of the assessment process and to the potential effect of discontinuities at the project level on sustainable design.

Attention to epistemology, theory use and citation practices are all issues which distinguish academic disciplines from other ways of knowing. The paper uses examples from construction research to outline and reflect on these issues. In doing so, the discussion provides an introduction to some key issues in social research as well as a reflection on the current state of construction research as a field. More specifically, the paper discusses differences between positivist and interpretivist epistemologies, the role of theory in each and their use by construction researchers. Philosophical differences are illustrated by appeal to two published construction research articles on innovation (Reichstein, Salter and Gann 2005, Harty 2008). An analysis of citations for each highlights different cumulativity strategies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential contribution of mixed research programmes, combining positivist and interpretivist research. The paper should be of interest to early researchers and to scholars concerned with the ongoing development of construction research as an academic field.

We explore the contribution of socio‐technical networks approaches to construction management research. These approaches are distinctive for their analysis of actors and objects as mutually constituted within socio‐technical networks. They raise questions about the ways in which the content, meaning and use of technology is negotiated in practice, how particular technical configurations are elaborated in response to specific problems and why certain paths or solutions are adopted rather than others. We illustrate this general approach with three case studies: a historical study of the development of reinforced concrete in France, the UK and the US, the recent introduction of 3D‐CAD software into four firms and an analysis of the uptake of environmental assessment technologies in the UK since 1990. In each we draw out the ways in which various technologies shaped and were shaped by different socio‐technical networks. We conclude with a reflection on the contributions of socio‐technical network analysis for more general issues including the study of innovation and analyses of context and power.Socio‐technical systems, socio‐technical networks, CM research, methodology, practice, 3D CAD, reinforced concrete, environmental assessment systems,