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.

A case study of the Tatweer school system in Saudi Arabia: the perceptions of leaders and teachers

School reform is a major concern in many countries that seek to improve their educational systems and enhance their performances. In consequence, many global schemes, theories, studies, attempts, and programmes have been introduced to promote education in recent years. Saudi Arabia is one of these countries that implemented educational change by introducing many initiatives. The Tatweer Programme is one of these initiatives and is considered as a major recent reform. The main purpose of this study is to investigate this reform in depth by examining the perceptions and experiences of the Tatweer leaders and teachers to find out which extent they have been enabled to be innovative, and to examine the types of leadership and decision-making that have been undertaken by such schools. This study adopted a qualitative case study that employed interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis. The design of the study has been divided into two phases; the first phase was the feasibility study and the second phase was the main study. The research sample of the feasibility study was head teachers, educational experts and Tatweer Unit’s members. The sample of the main study was three Tatweer schools, Tatweer Unit members and one official of Tatweer Project in Riyadh. The findings of this study identified the level of autonomy in managing the school; the Tatweer schools’ system is semi-autonomous when it comes to the internal management, but it lacks autonomy when it comes to staff appointment, student assessment, and curriculum development. In addition, the managerial work has been distributed through teams and members; the Excellence Team plays a critical role in school effectiveness leading an efficient change. Moreover, Professional Learning Communities have been used to enhance the work within Tatweer schools. Finally the findings show that there have been major shifts in the Tatweer schools’ system; the shifting from centralisation to semi-decentralisation; from the culture of the individual to the culture of community; from the traditional school to one focused on self-evaluation and planning; from management to leadership; and from an isolated school being open to society. These shifts have impacted positively on the attitudes of students, parents and staff.