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.

Love of reading: the evaluation of KidsREAD programme in Singapore

In Singapore about 20% of families are considered to be socio-economically disadvantaged. Children from these families have been identified as having reading difficulties when they enter primary school. Recognizing that children from these families have limited access to reading materials, the National Library Board, in partnership with local community clubs and family service centres, has established the KidsREAD literacy programme where volunteers, mostly university and college students, help children between 4 and 8 years of age overcome some of their reading problems. The KidsREAD clubs aim to “promote the love of reading and cultivate good reading habits among all young Singaporeans, in particular children from low-income families” (National Library Board, 2005). This paper presents an evaluation of the KidsREAD clubs with regard to children’s attitudes towards reading. It explores the differences in children’s reading attitudes at the beginning of the programme and half way through the programme. The study was carried out in three representative clubs. This paper evaluates the attitudes of 65 children towards the clubs and the activities conducted at the clubs. It outlines the children’s beliefs about reading and the extent to which they value reading. It further explores how much KidsREAD clubs have influenced their attitudes towards reading in general and their enjoyment of reading in particular.

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.

The practice of reading aloud in the high school: a preliminary investigation

The paper considers students’ views of why reading aloud takes place and what are its effects.The results of two small focus-group discussions are presented, in which high school students were given the opportunity to express their responses to the practice of reading aloud in the classroom. Their responses are considered in the context of theoretical perspectives: pedagogical, reader-response and social/vocational. Analysis of responses reveals acknowledgement that reading aloud is not only a useful skill but also that it is a site of anxiety and even conflict.