Theory and research in construction education: the case for pragmatism

Lloyd M. Scott

Construction Management and Economics, 2016, vol. 34, issue 7-8, 552-560

Abstract: The education of the construction professional, like many others, has been shaped and nurtured by well-intentioned educationalists throughout the ages. While there has been much discourse around the theoretical underpinnings of construction education, not much has been set in writing. A philosophical position has not always been to the forefront of those pioneering and well-intentioned construction educationalists. There has been, rather, a ‘systems thinking’ approach, a sense of wanting to prepare an educational experience that would equip the future leaders in construction to ensure they would develop the knowledge, skills and competences to take their place in an ever-changing architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. Now, at least around Europe, there is an ever-increasing attempt to identify the paradigms within which construction education sits comfortably, thus attempting to pave the way for the future. This could be called a philosophical positioning. There follows an exploration of the evolution of the education of the construction professional through a review of the literature and other sources in an attempt to make some sense of this journey. The paper also presents the discourse from the educational research perspective where the connection between the role of theory and philosophy has been a matter of discussion for many years. Biesta in his work calls for the intelligent use of theory and philosophy and advocates pragmatic positioning in regard to discourse. This pragmatic framework offers the freedom to gain control over what construction education constitutes as it offers a way of thinking that allows the educationalist freedom to challenge. What is presented and debated is the discussion that has been documented with a view to offering some perspective on its importance. Some philosophical perspective is also offered around the developments with the added suggestion that AEC is firmly seated in the ‘pragmatic’ paradigm. Much progress has been achieved to date but it is now time to offer a possible further step forward. While a pragmatic philosophical position is suggested it is not to imply that this is the only tool that might be used. The freedom to work within the pragmatic paradigm offers diversity that can draw together some of the thoughts that challenge and build the arguments about the role and position of theory in construction education.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2016.1151539 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:34:y:2016:i:7-8:p:552-560

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RCME20

DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2016.1151539

Access Statistics for this article

Construction Management and Economics is currently edited by Will Hughes

More articles in Construction Management and Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().