Creswell (2007; 2009) proposes five qualitative research strategies that are underpinned by an interpretative worldview. These are ‘narrative research’, ‘phenomenological research’, ‘grounded theory’, ‘ethnography’ and ‘case study’ research. Differing slightly from the normal explanation of research strategies being quantitative or qualitative, Robson (2011, p. 131) determines that research strategies can be divided into “fixed” and “flexible” design. Robson (2011, p.131) states that fixed design strategies follow a post-positivist worldview and are typically ”off the
shelf”, while flexible strategies follow a more interpretative paradigm, “where
113
the course of the research”. Robson (2011) accounts three influential flexible
research design traditions which he outlines as ‘case studies’, ‘ethnographic studies’ and ‘grounded theories’. It is evident through the strategies that Robson lists (similar to Creswell), that he is giving an alternative name (flexible) to what Creswell describes as qualitative research strategies. These are traditional qualitative research strategies and are utilised by many researchers carrying out social research (Bryman, 2008).
The ‘narrative’, ‘ethnography’ and ‘phenomenological’ approaches outlined by Creswell (2007; 2009) and Robson (2011) do not entirely fit with the research problem. The reason is that, although elements of the research may express what Creswell (2007, p.54) describes as the “lived experiences” of the participants, the
nature of this research is not purely on the revelation of patterns and relationships of the participants involved in the study (which is a theme in ethnography, narrative and phenomenological research). Thus, the focus is not on one or more of the participants, but rather the process (LCC/BIM) they are engaging in, and their views of it. Observations and reflections on using a BIM solution for LCC and engaging in this process can then be used to improve the solution and ultimately affect change. This strategy is more in line with what Creswell (2009) proposes as ‘grounded theory’, which is a research methodology where the researcher derives a general abstract theory of the process, action or interaction, grounded in the views of the participants. However, grounded theory cannot be aligned with the research intent as it does not accommodate the active role of the researcher in generating the theory (Azhar et al. 2010). The process developed in this research (leveraging 5D BIM for LCC) is not just grounded in the views of the participants but is derived from past experiences, relevant literature and action learning, thus this strategy is not applied. One of Creswell’s (2007; 2009) ‘qualitative strategies’ which could be applied as a strategy in this research is ‘case study research’. The case study focuses on understanding the dynamics present within a single setting (Amaratunga et al., 2002) and usually refers to relatively intensive analysis of a single instance of a phenomenon being investigated (Yin, 2009). Naoum (2013) claims that with such an interpretative approach the researcher tends not to affect or interfere with what is being studied, thus, the researcher is a passive observer in this type of approach. In this regard, a case study research strategy does not entirely meet the researcher’s
114 needs, as primarily focusing on observing the phenomenon will not take stock of the active role in engaging in the phenomenon.
4.3.3 Action Research
An advocacy/participatory research paradigm which is included in a number of research methodology texts such as Bell (1993) Yin (2009), Fellows & Liu (2008) and Savin-Baden & Howell Major (2013) is action research. In these publications action research is defined as a qualitative research strategy based on an interpretative paradigm and more specifically an advocacy/participatory and pragmatism worldview. The term ‘action research’ was coined by Kurt Lewin (1943) who
developed the method in wake of social changes that happened after World War II. Lewin articulated the method as “a way of generating knowledge about a social system while, at the same time attempting to change it” (Lewin 1946, cited in Azhar,
Ahmad, & Sein, 2010, p. 88).
Azhar et al. (2010) present action research as a research approach that aims at building and/or testing theory within the context of solving an immediate ‘practical problem’. Savin-Baden (2013) notes that the practical problem is solved through a cyclical process of action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others. Iivari & Venbable (2009) elaborate that action research should; be carried out through a cyclical process of problem solving, change and action; contribute to both practice and research at the same time; explicitly outline what learning is achieved through reflection and should include joint collaboration with an external party. Susman & Evered (1978) (Figure 4.1) present a staged process to action research, starting with diagnosing a practical problem; planning an action to propose a solution; evaluating the action and subsequently specifying the learning from the solution in action.
Figure 4.1: Action Research (Susman & Evered, 1978)
The focus of action research as outlined by Jarvinen (2007) and Azhar et al. (2010) encompasses Iivari & Venbable (2009) latter principle, where the researcher is an
115
active participant rather than a passive observer. By including the researcher in the research equation, Robson (2011, p.188) proposes that action research adds the “promotion of change to the traditional research purposes of description, understanding and explanation”. In the context of this research adding LCC to the
5D BIM process by post-processing BIM data is the subject matter or phenomenon of the evaluation research and its development is achieved through what Savin- Baden (2013) outlines as a cyclical process of thinking, acting, data gathering and reflection. Including LCC in the BIM process instigates a change in the 5D BIM work-flow and as Sagor (2005) states, this change needs to be evaluated to determine whether it can be accomplished.
Considering the research aim and objectives, which contains an action agenda to develop an integrated 5D BIM - LCC process, an action research approach emerged as a relevant methodology to use in this research. The premise being that action research complements research in a practical setting by enabling collaboration with an external body to solve a work related issue (Azhar et al. 2010). However, Aram & Salipante (2003) and Azhar et al., (2010) claim one of the shortfalls of action research is its emphasis on context and action, leaving action research without an understanding of what knowledge can result from the action process and how this may be applied in a different context. From the perspective of this research, another issue that could impede it being categorised purely as action research is that the researcher is not directly acting on behalf or involved with a practitioner or professional organisation (Azhar et al., 2010). However, there are a number of different variants of action research prescribed on their level of interaction with a company. Cohen et al. (2011) note what is important is that the action approach has a form of collaboration at some stage in the research process. Moreover, Savin-Baden (2013) describes an action research approach where the researcher designs the action plan for the practitioners (rather than with them) and validation happens in the latter stages to address whether it solves their practical problem.
In this study, the research question and the initial construct of the solution is framed from experience, reflection and secondary research. Collaboration happens later in two forms, the first with Exactal technologies when developing the 5D BIM LCC process and later with QS practitioners who will potentially use the solution. Both sets of collaborators provide feedback and suggestions to improve the process. Thus,
116
the practitioner’s involvement in the early stages of this research is less formal than what is described in Azhar et al. (2010), Savin-Baden (2013) and Yin (2009). However, the action research cycle of refection and action, which is the cornerstone of action research, is very evident throughout the research processes.
At this stage, action research emerged as the most appropriate methodology, but this was based predominantly on a review of traditional research approaches from authors such as Creswell (2007; 2009), Bell (1993), Yin (2009), Savin-Baden (2013) and Robson (2011). There has been much debate on the relevance of academic research and the knowledge transfer between academics and practitioners in the last number of decades, and many viewpoints, which are discussed in the next section, have been put forward that describe a gap between traditional academic research and the practitioner (Aram & Salipante Jr., 2003; Gibbons et al., 1994; Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008; Voordijk, 2009). Given that the research focuses on a practical solution, it was necessary to investigate whether an alternative methodology could be utilised or supplemented to support a practice based approach.