Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper.

Review of recent research (1998-2012) in German for Academic Purposes (GAP) in comparison with English for Academic Purposes (EAP): cross-influences, synergies and implications for further research

This state-of-the-art review reports on the major studies conducted in the field of Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache (academic German) since the late 1990s. To begin with, the current position of German as a language of academic communication nationally and internationally will be discussed, focusing especially on the challenges posed by the status of English as a lingua franca. Subsequently, the major research undertaken since the late 1990s will be reviewed and its contribution to the development of teaching materials evaluated. Since studies on academic German have been influenced, to some extent, by research in English for Academic Purposes (EAP), this paper also attempts to dovetail developments in EAP in order to highlight commonalties and differences. The final sections will discuss some potential synergies and implications for further research in both fields.

Serial clustering of extratropical cyclones in a multi-model ensemble of historical and future simulations

This study has investigated serial (temporal) clustering of extra-tropical cyclones simulated by 17 climate models that participated in CMIP5. Clustering was estimated by calculating the dispersion (ratio of variance to mean) of 30 December-February counts of Atlantic storm tracks passing nearby each grid point. Results from single historical simulations of 1975-2005 were compared to those from historical ERA40 reanalyses from 1958-2001 ERA40 and single future model projections of 2069-2099 under the RCP4.5 climate change scenario. Models were generally able to capture the broad features in reanalyses reported previously: underdispersion/regularity (i.e. variance less than mean) in the western core of the Atlantic storm track surrounded by overdispersion/clustering (i.e. variance greater than mean) to the north and south and over western Europe. Regression of counts onto North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) indices revealed that much of the overdispersion in the historical reanalyses and model simulations can be accounted for by NAO variability. Future changes in dispersion were generally found to be small and not consistent across models. The overdispersion statistic, for any 30 year sample, is prone to large amounts of sampling uncertainty that obscures the climate change signal. For example, the projected increase in dispersion for storm counts near London in the CNRMCM5 model is 0.1 compared to a standard deviation of 0.25. Projected changes in the mean and variance of NAO are insufficient to create changes in overdispersion that are discernible above natural sampling variations.

The Operation of the Crichel Down Rules (Final Report to the DETR by The University of Reading and Gerald Eve)

Report for the DETR on the operation of the Crichel Down Rules (July 2000). The Crichel Down Rules are non-statutory rules relating to the offer back to the previous owners of surplus government land that was acquired from the previous owners by, or under the threat of, compulsory purchase.