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.

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.

Psychometric evaluation of the Disordered Eating Attitude Scale (DEAS). English version

Eating attitudes are defined as beliefs, thoughts, feelings, behaviors and relationship with food They could influence people`s food choices and their health status Objective This study aimed to adapt from Portuguese to English the Disordered Eating Attitude Scale (DEAS) and evaluate its validity and reliability. The original scale in Portuguese was translated and adapted into English and was applied to female university students of University of Minnesota USA (n = 224). Internal consistency was determined (Cronbach`s Alpha). Convergent validity was assessed by correlations between Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT-26) and Restrain Scale (RS). Reliability was evaluated applying twice the scale to a sub-sample (n = 30). The scale was back translated into Portuguese and compared with the original version and discrepancies were not found. The internal consistency was .76 The DEAS total score was significantly associated with EAT-26 (r = 0.65) and RS (r = 0 69) scores The correlation between test-retest was r = 09 The English version of DEAS showed appropriate internal consistency, convergent validity and test-retest reliability and will be useful to assess eating attitudes in different population groups in English spoken countries. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Observation in the MINOS far detector of the shadowing of cosmic rays by the sun and moon

The shadowing of cosmic ray primaries by the moon and sun was observed by the MINOS far detector at a depth of 2070 mwe using 83.54 million cosmic ray muons accumulated over 1857.91 live-days. The shadow of the moon was detected at the 5.6 sigma level and the shadow of the sun at the 3.8 sigma level using a log-likelihood search in celestial coordinates. The moon shadow was used to quantify the absolute astrophysical pointing of the detector to be 0.17 +/- 0.12 degrees. Hints of interplanetary magnetic field effects were observed in both the sun and moon shadow. Published by Elsevier B.V.

The magnetized steel and scintillator calorimeters of the MINOS experiment

The Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) experiment uses an accelerator-produced neutrino beam to perform precision measurements of the neutrino oscillation parameters in the ""atmospheric neutrino"" sector associated with muon neutrino disappearance. This long-baseline experiment measures neutrino interactions in Fermilab`s NuMI neutrino beam with a near detector at Fermilab and again 735 km downstream with a far detector in the Soudan Underground Laboratory in northern Minnesota. The two detectors are magnetized steel-scintillator tracking calorimeters. They are designed to be as similar as possible in order to ensure that differences in detector response have minimal impact on the comparisons of event rates, energy spectra and topologies that are essential to MINOS measurements of oscillation parameters. The design, construction, calibration and performance of the far and near detectors are described in this paper. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Assessing the Design of the Library's Discovery Interface and Online resources: A Case Study at the University of Maryland

This presentation was offered as part of the CUNY Library Assessment Conference, Reinventing Libraries: Reinventing Assessment, held at the City University of New York in June 2014.