Preserving methodological consistency, a reply to Raftery, McGeorge and Walters

Rooke, JA; Seymour, D; Crook, D

Abstract

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.

Citation

Rooke, J., Seymour, D., & Crook, D. (1997). Preserving methodological consistency, a reply to Raftery, McGeorge and Walters. Construction Management and Economics, 15(5), 491-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997372845

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Sep 1, 1997
• Deposit Date: Nov 26, 2009
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 5, 2016
• Journal: Construction Management and Economics
• Print ISSN: 0144-6193
• Publisher: Routledge
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 5
• Pages: 491-494
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997372845
• Keywords: Research Methodology; Research Paradigms; Methodological Debate
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461997372845