\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Confirmatory sequential research design for theory building and testing:
proposal for construction management research's paradigm and methodology}



\author[1]{Oluseye Olugboyega}%
\affil[1]{Obafemi Awolowo University}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 28, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
There is an absence of fitting research methodology in construction
management research. This has prompted a shortage of theories that are
exceptional to the field. Thus, this paper proposes confirmatory
sequential research design as a research paradigm and methodology for
theory building and testing in construction management research. The
method makes qualitative and quantitative techniques reciprocal through
a staggered and vigorous interaction. An illustrative course of applying
the technique was laid out. It was deduced in this paper that, a
confirmatory sequential research design is fundamental for the future
and unwavering quality of construction management research. The main
contribution made by this paper to mixed method is a systemic mixed
method-based research design that the paper presents.\\%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Confirmatory sequential research design for theory building and
testing: proposal for construction management research's paradigm and
methodology}

Oluseye Olugboyega

Faculty of Environmental Design and Management,

Department of Building,

Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

oolugboyega@oauife.edu.ng

\textbf{Abstract}

There is an absence of fitting research methodology in construction
management research. This has prompted a shortage of theories that are
exceptional to the field. Thus, this paper proposes confirmatory
sequential research design as a research paradigm and methodology for
theory building and testing in construction management research. The
method makes qualitative and quantitative techniques reciprocal through
a staggered and vigorous interaction. An illustrative course of applying
the technique was laid out. It was deduced in this paper that, a
confirmatory sequential research design is fundamental for the future
and unwavering quality of construction management research. The main
contribution made by this paper to mixed method is a systemic mixed
method-based research design that the paper presents.

\textbf{Keywords} : construction management, mixed methods, a paradigm
for construction management, conceptual model, conceptual framework

\textbf{Introduction}

A theory has been depicted as a bunch of interrelated ideas (concepts),
definitions and propositions, an assertion of the speculated connection
between and among variables, a gathering of sensibly coordinated laws or
connections that establishes clarification in a discipline, a bunch of
connections among autonomous and subordinate factors that present a
precise perspective on peculiarities by indicating relations among
factors, fully intent on clarifying and foreseeing the peculiarities
(Gelso, 2006). Theory permits researchers to comprehend and foresee
results of interest as well as depict and clarify a process or sequence
of events (Kerlinger \& Lee, 2000). A theory is connected with and not
quite the same as hypothesis, proposition, paradigm, model, concept, and
conceptual model. A concept is a psychological picture that sums up a
bunch of comparative connections (Bachman and Schutt, 2007). Paradigm on
the other hand is an approach to viewing the phenomenal world or a
theory. Propositions are explanations that communicate the relationship
of at least two ideas. It fits an inductive exploration approach (Cozby,
2009).

Gelso (2006) portrays a hypothesis as a suggestion expressed in an
experimentally testable way. It fits an insightful methodology and fills
in as the extension between quantitative information and the hypothesis
plan. Hypotheses are succinct proclamations about a proposed theory. As
per Meredith (1993), a model is a graph for picturing the
inter-relatedness of variables showing their causal bearing and nature
of the relationship. A conceptual model is a psychological model of a
theory (set of connections) introduced in a diagrammatic structure. A
conceptual model is regularly utilized in research to delineate
connections inside within a theory be that as it may, without help, do
not constitute theory until the connections are adequately approved. In
light of the above explanation, one might say that a theory responds to
the inquiry why portrays causal connections, should be testable,
reasonable, generalizable, fills in as law or model, gives edification,
and gives an account.

There are three sorts of theories in view of the means of building the
theories: hierarchical theory, concatenated theory, and critical theory.
The hierarchical theory is a hypothetic-derivation technique for forming
theories (on the other hand alluded to by scholars as nomothetic,
positivism, postpositivism, empirical-analytical, or hierarchialism).
This system is useful where a theory is needed to be generalizable
across populaces and it is worried about testing or affirming hypotheses
(Sprenger, 2011). The concatenated theory is an inductive- amalgamation
technique for planning theories (then again alluded to as idiographic,
grounded hypothesis, constructivism, or interpretive hypothesis). The
framework is useful where the objective of the exploration is to all the
more likely get what is happening in a particular setting and how
different partners figure out the extraordinary components under
perception (Zhu et al., 2019). Critical theory is on the other hand
alluded to as extremist, neo-Marxist, or social justice theory. The
focal point of critical theory is to reveal realities about power
relations that are dark or deliberately jumbled to citizenry determined
to change political, social, and financial disparities. In this system,
issues of double-dealing, strength, and enslavement are frequently
investigated to make social entertainers mindful of these imbalances and
work with liberation from them (Gehman et al., 2018; Gay and Weaver,
2011).

Construction management is a somewhat new and set up research region
that is encountering a shortage of theories. The shortage of
construction management theories is because of the absence of fitting
research philosophy. Construction management as a research area is
conflicted between management and engineering field. Both management and
engineering require the validation of existing theories and the
formulation of new ones to channel new directions in the fields.
Construction management is a result of these two fields that require the
adaption of engineering laws and management theories, and all the more
significantly the detailing of construction management-specific
theories. This paper seeks to remedy the shortage of construction
management-specific theories by proposing a research design for theory
building and testing in construction management research. This paper
also has a double concentration. The initial segment of the paper
inspects the process of research as it connects with the development and
testing of theory. It suggests that management theory, with its catholic
point of view, is a significant reference discipline for construction
management. It proceeds to depict a research design that holds a
critical guarantee for construction management research topics.

\textbf{Literature review}

This segment explores the role of theory in construction management
research, the transaction between grounded theory and theory building in
construction management research, and the value of mixed methods in
construction management research.

\textbf{2.1 Role of theory in construction management research}

Construction management is a moderately new field that draws from both
the natural and social sciences. Attributable to its situation as the
mid-point between engineering and management, researchers in the field
are confronted with the adoption of an objective (engineering) paradigm
- where the attention is on discovering something genuine with regards
to the world it centers around, or a subjective (social
science/management) paradigm - where the goal is to see the way that
various truths are established (Lauri, 2008). As a result of this
quandary, positivism and quantitative techniques have been in the
ascendancy in construction management research (Dainty, 2007).
Nonetheless, the discussion about the role of theory in construction
management research began during the 1990s and was driven by Seymour and
Rooke (1995), Rooke et al. (1997), Loosemore et al. (1999), Dainty
(2008), and Seymour et al. (1998).

The discussion was significantly started on the contention that the
research methods taken on by the construction management researchers
have directed the focal point of the field however gave a limited
advance in the comprehension of industry peculiarities (Phelps et al.,
2010). In the following discussion, a portion of the researchers
contended that the `object' of most construction management research is
people; while some argued otherwise. The result of the discussion
prompted the agreement that the culture of research should change if
researchers were to impact the industry (AlSehaimi et al., 2013). Rather
than restricting construction management research to quantitative or
qualitative methods; endeavors ought to be made to pick research
philosophy as indicated by the nature of the investigation and expected
contribution to knowledge.

As indicated by Gay and Weaver (2011), unique research ought to add to
the assemblage of knowledge in the appropriate discipline or space.
Since the theory is the cash of academic exploration, theory-building
and testing are the best methods to contribute to knowledge (Hughes,
1999; Corley and Gioia, 2011). The degree to which research fabricates
new theory and the degree to which existing theories are validated
determine the extent to which a theoretical contribution to knowledge
could be made (Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Theory building and
testing will be a huge step forward for construction management because
the development of theories and advancement of knowledge proceeds from
them (de Valence, 2012). This suggests that construction management is
an alternate set of management and by so it requires theories and
principles formulated from theoretical contributions and implications.
Nonetheless, there is an innate intricacy in the construction industry
and the majority of the research in this field is still issue-centered.

\textbf{2.2 Grounded theory and theory building in construction
management research}

Grounded Theory (GT) includes an iterative course of gathering and
investigating information to assemble a theory concerning how research
participants decipher their daily realities (Suddaby, 2006). GT is
created through the extraction of ideas and their interdependencies that
are acquired from analyzing qualitative data (e.g. interview
transcripts). There are three methodologies in embracing GT, which are
recorded as follows: Straussian approach (Strauss \& Corbin, 1990),
glaserian approach (Heath and Cowley, 2004), and constructive approach
(Charmaz, 2000). Researchers ought to pick their procedure of GT,
compatible with their mental style. Likewise, it has been underlined,
not to combine various methodologies of GT as one.

GT is a significant strategy for information examination that empowers
the efficient development of theory from the data through inductive and
insightful reasoning. GT explicitly focuses on (i) the significance of
long haul field studies to find what is truly happening; (ii) the
presence of intricacy and fluctuation in human activity; (iii) an
acknowledgment that individuals act because of significance and that the
significance is characterized and reclassified through communication;
(iv) an aversion to the significance of the advancing and unfurling
nature of occasions; and (v) attention to the interrelationship between
conditions, structure, activity, cycle, and outcomes (Walker and Myrick,
2006).

As indicated by Phelps et al., (2010), GT is reasonable for construction
management research since construction comprises of activities that
include the absolute most complex specialized frameworks that should be
planned and built by various specific individuals in friendly frameworks
that we know as project teams. The idea of GT permits the evoked
information to be ceaselessly evolved, refined, and connected until a
theory is assembled. This suggests that theories from GT rise out of
information gathered from social climate in its full reality, as well as
result in knowledge and understanding that would not be imaginable
through different techniques. Likewise, it proposes that GT prompts more
prominent agreement and the improvement of constructs that interface
them to make a theoretical construct in regards to the repeating idea of
what data-sharing practices mean for the advancement of trust and
learning within project teams. With GT, construction management
scientists could concentrate on peculiarities, for example, (i)
practices that emerge because of social conditions; (ii) practices that
are not coordinated toward the fulfillment of hierarchical or
administrative objectives; and (iii) mental exercises such as critical
thinking and other team-oriented activities that in any case would not
be imaginable because of systemic restrictions.

Various construction management studies have utilized GT to construct
theory. For example, Shojaei and Haeri (2019) proposed an extensive
supply chain risk management approach for construction projects that
uses, GT, fuzzy cognitive mapping, and grey relational analysis. A true
contextual analysis is introduced in the review to show the pertinence
and viability of the proposed approach. Different risk mitigation
situations are created and assessed by the proposed approach.
Kulchartchai and Hadikusumo (2010) dissected the obstructions that
forestall the development of a safety culture in Thailand's large
construction industry from various managerial points of view. Subjective
exploration techniques were utilized by playing out a progression of
semi-structured interviews of eight case studies selected from six
prominent construction firms to investigate the obstacles they face.
Glaser's catchphrase coding from GT was utilized to decrease the data
load after the interviews. A study by Olugboyega and Windapo (2019)
inspected the aspects and parts of construction safety culture and
whether the use of BIM technologies to the dimensions of construction
safety culture improves the safety maturity levels among construction
workers. The study utilized a systematic literature review and GT in
accomplishing the research objectives. These examples affirmed the
convenience of GT in construction management studies.

\textbf{2.3 Mixed methods in construction management research}

A research methodology is a philosophical structure and crucial
suppositions directing the research. It covers the particular strategies
of data collection and analysis. Research methods involve qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed-method. A mixed-method is a way to deal with the
request that joins the remarkable procedure and strategies for both
qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Mixed methods research
is officially characterized as the class of exploration where the
specialist blends or joins quantitative and subjective examination
procedures, techniques, approaches, ideas, or language into a solitary
report (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed methods consolidate the
qualities and resolve the weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative
research. For instance, quantitative research has been known to give a
portrayal of one particular moment and don't catch how perspectives and
qualities may change over the long run.

Moreover, the method has impediments of expecting respondents to
accommodate their responses inside a restricted scope of replies. As far
as strength, subjective technique empowers the perception of
peculiarities in their regular setting. As indicated by Aramo-Immonen
(2013), mixed methods designs give researchers, across research
disciplines, a thorough way to deal with responding to research
questions. Caruth (2013) added that mixed methods can add insight and
understanding that may be missed when only a single research design is
utilized. This infers that mixed methods give more exhaustive proof to
concentrating on an exploration issue. Additionally, with mixed methods,
a comprehensive comprehension of the peculiarity can undoubtedly be
developed by combining the inductive and rational information got in the
epistemological interaction. Also, in mixed methods, the aftereffects of
the two informational indexes go about as cushion and a check against
exaggerating the case for ends got from either approach alone.

No matter what the advantages of mixed methods are, research methods
should be chosen in light of the research question, the quality expected
(where the qualities of both qualitative and quantitative methods are
capitalized on to work on the dependability of the examination result),
the subtleties and intricacies of the peculiarity being investigated,
the profundity of comprehension required, and research setting.
Notwithstanding, the reception of mixed methods by construction
management researchers has been educated by the intricacy and profundity
of comprehension needed by the greater part of the construction
management phenomenon. The utilization of mixed methods has been very
much reported in the construction management literature (Bowen et al.,
2012; Korkmaz et al., 2011; Gilbert et al., 2017; Ebekozien, 2019;
Ostadalimakhmalbaf et al., 2019). This demonstrates that mixed methods
are suitable for most research problems in construction management
research, particularly theory-building research. With mixed methods,
construction management researchers can assemble theories, sum up the
theories to different populaces, profoundly comprehend the unique
collaboration and view of the partners associated with the peculiarity,
clarify and comprehend human conduct, and produce reciprocal bits of
knowledge.

Mixed methods cannot be attempted without a research design. A research
design addresses the activities of a researcher in a given research
method. Mixed methods research design incorporate (i) exploratory
sequential design (a mixed-method research design where qualitative data
are gathered and utilized as a correlative variable in deciphering and
upgrading discoveries from quantitative data), (ii) explanatory
sequential design (where qualitative data are gathered to verify and
develop quantitative information and to help improved quantitative
information. quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered and
deciphered independently while results will be coordinated after
translation of discoveries), (iii) convergent concurrent design, (iv)
concurrent triangulation design (qualitative and quantitative data, in
general, have similar weight during the integration phase and they are
gathered at the same time to cover each other's shortcomings), (v)
concurrent nested design (qualitative and quantitative data are gathered
simultaneously and analysis of types of data will occur together), and
(vi) concurrent transformative design (quantitative and qualitative data
are gathered simultaneously and mixed during analysis phase)(Guest,
2012; Alavi and Habek, 2016; Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2009; Schoonenboom
and Johnson, 2017).

\textbf{Proposed paradigm and methodology: Confirmatory sequential
research design}

This method is a variation of exploratory sequential research design. It
was created by drawing upon the attributes of exploratory sequential
research design and the realities of the construction industry to
advance the comprehension of the fact of construction management
practices according to the points of view of the experts in the sector.
Not at all like the exploratory sequential research design; confirmatory
sequential design presents a full strategy for mixing the discoveries of
qualitative and quantitative analysis. Discoveries are not mixed at the
interpretation phase, however, mixed systematically through theory
formulation. This builds up the requirement for GT in confirmatory
sequential research design. The time direction for the design is not
simultaneous but consecutive, where qualitative data collection and
analysis go before the quantitative part. In this design, the status or
level of priority of qualitative and quantitative methods is not an
issue. None dominates the other, yet equivalent status or need is
offered to both methods. The ideal paradigm for this method is
pragmatism. This is on the grounds that the method is a research design
method within mixed methods.

The proposed confirmatory sequential research design includes five
successive stages: (i) theory building, (ii) first stage theory
confirmation, (iii) second stage theory confirmation, and (iv) revision
of the theory. These steps are displayed in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows
several arrows leading from steps 1 to steps 2, 3, and 4 demonstrate
that the research design includes a cyclical and interactional process
of building and confirming theories. It is a staggering research plan
that efficiently incorporates or blends the discoveries of both
qualitative and quantitative methods. Every one of the stages should
occur inside a single study.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image1/image1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 1: confirmatory sequential research design}

In confirmatory sequential research design, the research begins with a
conceptual model (a preconceived explanation of or suppositions about
the phenomena of interest generally got from conceptualizing, decisive
reasoning, and applied reasoning) or a theoretical model (clarifications
or assumptions about the phenomena of interest as gotten from systematic
literature review or existing theories). The final activity in stage 1
is to break down the model into question-like statements. Stage 2
commences with qualitative data collection in view of the formulated
questions in stage 1. The main activity in stage 2 is GT. A GT analysis
should be performed on the collected data to produce theories that
clarify what's going on. The theories from GT will provide insights to
address the proposed connections and factors in the conceptual or
theoretical model. This progression will empower a controlled and
centered exploration. It will likewise empower the perception of a
particular populace or phenomenon in their natural setting.

The detailed experiences gathered from the interviewees during these
long durations provide researchers a rich comprehension of mind-boggling
peculiarities that happen inside that particular social climate so
analysts can foster comprehension of something other than the
unequivocal importance of words, activities, and antiques. This is
particularly significant in the construction sector where knowledge is
tacit and not explicit. Furthermore, GT gives a huge chance to approve
the researcher's understanding of observations and implications as
postulated in the conceptual or theoretical model. The new bits of
knowledge that GT gives will approve the researcher's understanding of
the phenomenon of present irregularities that challenge it. If the GT
validates the proposed model, then the researcher can move to the next
stage; but theory amendment or alteration of the model is fundamental
assuming the GT challenges the model.

Validation with theory or hypothesis testing is the next step (that is,
stage 3). The hypotheses should be formed as articulations of realities
from the changed or approved model in stage 2. Where the model is
validated by the GT analysis, the question-like statements in stage 1
are transformed into hypotheses. New hypothesized relationships that
conform to the revised model are to be formulated assuming changes were
made to the proposed model. The normal techniques for testing hypothesis
and theory are Chi-square, linear regression, Confirmatory Factor
Analysis, multiple regression, Structural Equation Modelling, and
Artificial Intelligence. These methods have been utilized for theory and
hypothesis testing in construction management research (Olugboyega and
Windapo, 2021a, b; Olarenwaju et al., 2021; Windapo et al., 2019).
Validation of the theory or model is fundamental to guarantee that
theory being developed is exact, important, significant, solid,
generalizable, and has more extensive application. Validity necessitates
that the researcher gives sufficient detail to persuade others that the
populace has been adequately perceived. The unwavering quality cycles
that accompany hypothesis or theory testing give security and
consistency to the model under comparative conditions. Reliability
additionally gives sufficient setting and subtlety that others will get
what parts of the remarkable circumstance are generalizable to
comparable circumstances. In the last stage (that is, stage 4), the
outcomes acquired in stage 3 are employed to finalize the model or
theory. Only the validated hypotheses with empirical backings are
included in the model or taken as the established theory.

Confirmatory sequential research design is a method that makes
qualitative and quantitative methods complementary through a staggered
and hearty interaction. It is a technique that is vital for the future
and dependability of construction management studies. According to
Dainty (2007), the future development of construction management
research will rely on the readiness of its research community to
consider qualitative and quantitative research to be integral rather
than cutthroat and totally unrelated. Love et al., (2002) noticed that
post-modernity and multi-level research methods are fundamental to
broadening the extent of construction management. Love et al., (2002)
likewise noticed that a powerful research method is needed to
successfully address the intricacy and various difficulties in the
construction sector. This suggests that understanding the phenomenon
that impacts hierarchical, project, individuals, innovation, and
interaction performance in the construction sector requires a vigorous
research method.

The utilization of qualitative or quantitative methods is regularly not
satisfactory to empower comprehension of the perplexing connections that
lead to a significant number of the construction industry's inescapable
social and specialized issues. A definite method for tending to these
impediments is for the construction research community to supplement
prevalent quantitative and case study methodologies with qualitative
theory-building methodologies (Phelps et al., 2010). Construction
management is a sociotechnical science that requires the use of
empirical methods to quantifiably improve on reality to show and foresee
its cycles and peculiarities. In any case, without an equivalent
accentuation on social, behavioral, and cultural factors to fabricate a
thorough comprehension of these peculiarities, the outcomes from
experimental and quantitative examinations alone will be constantly
lacking (Phelps et al., 2010; Zou et al., 2014). Puddicombe and Johnson
(2011) exhibited that a cycle that expands on theory and that utilizes
approaches from management research holds a critical guarantee for
research in construction management. This large number of contentions
make confirmatory sequential research design applicable in problematic
situations which require the successful connecting of judgment and
investigation. Likewise, confirmatory sequential research design will
fill in as research methods for theory-focused research in construction
management.

\textbf{Contribution to mixed method research}

The contributions of this paper to mixed method are of different sorts -
a theory building process, utilization of grounded theory in mixed
method technique, a data gathering interaction, and data investigation
process. This paper has underlined the significance of mixed method
research in construction management research and broadened the mixed
method-based research design choices that could be utilized by mixed
method users.

\textbf{Conclusion}

This paper has introduced an elective viewpoint on how construction
management researchers may plan their research projects later on. The
paper proposed confirmatory sequential research design as the system of
theory building and testing in construction management research
utilizing GT and mixed methods. The system empowers a methodical
advancement of theory from the data through inductive and insightful
reasoning and perception of phenomena in their natural setting. The
system gives a powerful strategy for concentrating on complex
specialized frameworks and working on reality to model its processes and
phenomena. Through this system, construction management researchers will
actually want to make a significant contribution to knowledge and
effectively recognize the theoretical and practical implications of
their research works.

The critical strength of confirmatory sequential research design is its
provision of systematic mixing of the findings of qualitative and
quantitative analysis through theory formulation. Unlike, exploratory
sequential research design where qualitative and quantitative findings
are mixed at the interpretation phase, confirmatory sequential research
design blends the discoveries successively from theory building to
theory testing and confirmation. Additionally, in confirmatory
sequential research design, the degree of priority of qualitative and
quantitative methods is not an issue.

Construction management studies will find confirmatory sequential
research design valuable in their works, as it outlines the practical
strides to be taken for theory building and testing. Through this
research design, distinct theories will rise out of construction
management studies and the construction management field will have its
exceptional theories that address the eccentricities and nature of the
construction sector. Albeit this paper didn't show the utilization of
confirmatory sequential research design, studies that have applied its
fundamental parts like GT and mixed methods have been discussed. What is
presently required is its inescapable use in construction management
studies.

\textbf{References}

Alavi, H., \& Habek, P. (2016). Addressing research design problem in
mixed methods research. \emph{Management Systems in Production
Engineering} .

AlSehaimi, A., Koskela, L., \& Tzortzopoulos, P. (2013). Need for
alternative research approaches in construction management: Case of
delay studies. \emph{Journal of Management in Engineering} ,\emph{29}
(4), 407-413.

Aramo-Immonen, H. (2011, September). Mixed methods research design.
In\emph{World Summit on Knowledge Society} (pp. 32-43). Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.

Bachman, R. \& Schutt, R. (2007). The practice of research in
criminology and criminal justice (3rded.).ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

Bowen, P., Edwards, P., \& Cattell, K. (2012, September). Corruption in
the South African construction industry: A mixed methods study.
In\emph{Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Edinburgh,
United Kingdom} (pp. 521-31).

Caruth, G. D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A
review of the literature. \emph{Online Submission} , \emph{3} (2),
112-122.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist
methods. \emph{Handbook of qualitative research} , \emph{2} , 509-535.

Colquitt, J. A., \& Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory
building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of
Management Journal. \emph{Academy of management journal} , \emph{50}
(6), 1281-1303.

Corbin, J. M., \& Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research:
Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. \emph{Qualitative
sociology} , \emph{13} (1), 3-21.

Corley, K. G., \& Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory
building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. \emph{Academy of
management review} , \emph{36} (1), 12-32.

Cozby, P. (2009). Methods in behavioral research. Boston: McGraw Hill
Higher Education.

Dainty, A. (2007, November). A call for methodological pluralism in
built environment research. In \emph{Proceedings of the third Scottish
Conference for postgraduate researchers of the built and natural
environment} (pp. 20-22). Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University.

Dainty, A. (2008). Methodological pluralism in construction management
research. \emph{Advanced research methods in the built environment}
,\emph{1} , 1-13.

de Valence, G. (2012). A theory of construction
management?.\emph{Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and
Building, The} ,\emph{12} (3), 95-100.

Ebekozien, A. (2019). Unethical practices in procurement performance of
Nigerian public building projects: mixed methods
approach.\emph{Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management}
,\emph{14} (3), 41-61.

Gay, B., \& Weaver, S. (2011). Theory building and paradigms: A primer
on the nuances of theory construction. \emph{American International
Journal of Contemporary Research} , \emph{1} (2), 24-32.

Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., \&
Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding theory--method fit: A comparison of three
qualitative approaches to theory building. \emph{Journal of Management
Inquiry} , \emph{27} (3), 284-300.

Gelso, C. J. (2006). Working alliance: Current status and future
directions: Editor's introduction. \emph{Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, Practice, Training} , \emph{43} (3), 257.

Gilbert, G., Cattell, K., Edwards, P., \& Bowen, P. (2017). A sequential
mixed methods research approach to investigating HIV/AIDS intervention
management by construction organisations in South Africa. Acta
Structilia, 24(1), 27-52.

Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to
typologies. \emph{Journal of mixed methods research} , \emph{7} (2),
141-151.

Heath, H., \& Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach:
a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. \emph{International journal of
nursing studies} , \emph{41} (2), 141-150.

Hughes, W. (1999). \emph{ARCOM construction management abstracts
1983-1998} . Association of Researchers in Construction Management.

Johnson, R. B., \& Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A
research paradigm whose time has come. \emph{Educational researcher}
,\emph{33} (7), 14-26.

Kerlinger, F.N., \& Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research
(4th ed.). Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., \& Horman, M. (2011). Assessing project delivery
for sustainable, high-performance buildings through mixed
methods.\emph{Architectural Engineering and Design Management} ,
\emph{7} (4), 266-274.

Koskela, L. (2008). Which kind of science is construction management?.

Kulchartchai, O., \& Hadikusumo, B. H. (2010). Exploratory study of
obstacles in safety culture development in the construction industry: a
grounded theory approach. \emph{Journal of construction in developing
countries} , \emph{15} (1), 45-66.

Leech, N. L., \& Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods
research designs. \emph{Quality \& quantity} , \emph{43} (2), 265-275.

Loosemore, M. (1999). International construction management research:
cultural sensitivity in methodological design. \emph{Construction
Management \& Economics} , \emph{17} (5), 553-561.

Love, P. E., Holt, G. D., \& Li, H. (2002). Triangulation in
construction management research. \emph{Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management} .

Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual
methods.\emph{International Journal of Operations \& Production
Management} .

Olanrewaju, O. I., Babarinde, S. A., Chileshe, N., \& Sandanayake, M.
(2021). Drivers for implementation of building information modeling
(BIM) within the Nigerian construction industry. \emph{Journal of
Financial Management of Property and Construction} .

Olugboyega, O., \& Windapo, A. (2019). Building Information
Modeling---Enabled Construction Safety Culture and Maturity Model: A
Grounded Theory Approach. \emph{Frontiers in Built Environment}
,\emph{5} , 35.

Olugboyega, O., \& Windapo, A. (2021). Modelling the indicators of a
reduction in BIM adoption barriers in a developing
country.\emph{International Journal of Construction Management} , 1-11.

Olugboyega, O., \& Windapo, A. O. (2021). Structural equation model of
the barriers to preliminary and sustained BIM adoption in a developing
country. \emph{Construction Innovation} .

Ostadalimakhmalbaf, M., Escamilla, E., Lewis, P., Dixit, M., \& Nichols,
J. (2019). Factors Impacting Undergraduate Hispanic Students' Retention
in Construction Programs: A Mixed Methods Research Synthesis.
In\emph{55th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings, Denver,
CO} .

Phelps, A. F., \& Horman, M. J. (2010). Ethnographic theory-building
research in construction. \emph{Journal of construction engineering and
management} , \emph{136} (1), 58-65.

Puddicombe, M. S., \& Johnson, B. (2011). Research and theory building
in construction management. \emph{International Journal of Construction
Education and Research} , \emph{7} (2), 126-142.

Rooke, J., Seymour, D., \& Crook, D. (1997). Preserving methodological
consistency: a reply to Raftery, McGeorge and Walters.\emph{Construction
Management \& Economics} , \emph{15} (5), 491-494.

Schoonenboom, J., \& Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed
methods research design. \selectlanguage{ngerman}\emph{KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie
und Sozialpsychologie} , \emph{69} (2), 107-131.

Seymour, D., \& Rooke, J. (1995). The culture of the industry and the
culture of research. \emph{Construction management and economics}
,\emph{13} (6), 511-523.

Seymour, D., Crook, D., \& Rooke, J. (1998). The role of theory in
construction management: reply to Runeson. \emph{Construction Management
\& Economics} , \emph{16} (1), 109-112.

Shojaei, P., \& Haeri, S. A. S. (2019). Development of supply chain risk
management approaches for construction projects: A grounded theory
approach. \emph{Computers \& Industrial Engineering} , \emph{128} ,
837-850.

Sprenger, J. (2011). Hypothetico\selectlanguage{english}-deductive confirmation.\emph{Philosophy
Compass} , \emph{6} (7), 497-508.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is
not.\emph{Academy of management journal} , \emph{49} (4), 633-642.

Walker, D., \& Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of
process and procedure. \emph{Qualitative health research} , \emph{16}
(4), 547-559.

Windapo, A., Olugboyega, O., \& Adediran, A. (2019). Procurement
strategies influencing small and medium contractor development in South
Africa. \emph{Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law} , \emph{172} (6), 253-263.

Zhu, H., Xiong, Z., Magill, S., \& Jagannathan, S. (2019, June). An
inductive synthesis framework for verifiable reinforcement learning.
In\emph{Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming
Language Design and Implementation} (pp. 686-701).

Zou, P. X., Sunindijo, R. Y., \& Dainty, A. R. (2014). A mixed methods
research design for bridging the gap between research and practice in
construction safety. \emph{Safety science} , \emph{70} , 316-326.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

