Advertisement

Methodologies for Construction Informatics Research

  • Žiga Turk
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4200)

Abstract

Construction informatics is a rather new topic in civil engineering and as such its rules of scientific investigation are not as mature as with topics with a longer tradition. The paper argues that construction informatics has elements in common with both natural sciences, mathematics, technology as well as humanities and therefore a broad scope of methodological apparatus is available, including that of humanities. Some current methods are criticized and action research and Socratic methods suggested as an alternative.

Keywords

Soft System Methodology Objective Real World Positivist Science Order Construct Causa Efficiens 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OECD, Frascati Manual, OECD Publication Services (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blaikie, N.: Approaches to Social Enquiry. Polity Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schutz, A.: Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action. The Problem of Social Reality, vol. 1. Martinus Hijhoff, The Hague (1962) (Collected Papers)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petroski, H.: Design Paradigms. Cambridge University Press, UK (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dye, J.: Socratic Method and Scientific Method (1996), http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dye/method.html
  6. 6.
    Gielingh, W.: General AEC reference model (GARM). In: Christiansson, P., Karlsson, H. (eds.) Conceptual modelling of buildings. CIB W74+W78 seminar. CIB proceedings, Lund university and the Swedish building centre, October 1988, p. 126 (1988), http://itc.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?w78-1988-165
  7. 7.
    de Kleer, J., Brown, J.S.: Assumptions and Ambiguities in Mechanistic Mental Models. In: Gentner, D., Stevens, A.L. (eds.) Mental Models, pp. 155–190. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henson, B., Juster, N., de Pennington, A.: Towards an Integrated Representation of Function, Behavior and Form. In: Sharpe, J., Oh, V. (eds.) Computer Aided Conceptual Design, Proceedings of the 1994 Lancaster International Workshop on Engineering Design, Lancaster University EDC, pp. 95–111 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qian, L., Gero, J.S.: Function-Behavior-Structure Paths and Their Role in Analogy-Based Design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 289–312 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., Nielsen, P.A.: Action research. Communications of the ACM 42(1) (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Popper, K.: The logic of scientific discovery, Routledge Classics (2002) (first published in German in 1935)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D.: An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582–603 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feyerabend, P.: Against Method Verso, London (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Žiga Turk
    • 1
  1. 1.FGG, Construction InformaticsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations