Investigating the Gaps between Engineering Graduates and Quantity Surveyors of Construction Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript represents a thorough analysis of the gaps in quantity survey competencies and engineering competencies; as such, it is appropriate for a special issue within sustainability, such as “Building a Sustainable Construction Workforce,” https://www.mdpi.com/topics/9EPD1KXZO3. The authors make the case that the gap between the competencies of these specific fields leaves engineers less capable in specific areas. Within the abstract, there is a claim, “As the conclusion derived from this study, it is recommended to introduce market-oriented mechanisms and establish a dynamic engineering talent model driven by market demand through collaborative development involving school-enterprise partnerships and the integration of expertise and creativity, aiming to foster the development of social practice competency.”

This conclusion is based an assumption that market forces will make education sustainable (for example, by improving market value of engineering graduates (as a “commodity” in the market) and building stronger market-based relationships). This may be a relevant conclusion based on the education system in China. I cannot speak to that since my knowledge is limited. It would seem important for the authors to support this essential conclusion with relevant evidence; it is otherwise an assumption upon which the manuscript rests.

I strongly urge the authors to consider withdrawing the submission to the special issue on “Sustainable Education and Approaches” and resubmitting this body of work to a special issue that is more directly aligned with the subject matter as presented in the manuscript, such as the one cited above. I feel their work would be much more appreciated and widely read by the audience of a special issue like “Building a Sustainable Construction Workforce.”

Otherwise, it would need major revision to address the topic of this special issue, “Sustainable Education and Approaches.” The text of the special issue description indicates, “This Special Issue aims to address these gaps in sustainable education and relevant issues in education in a broad sense.”

The state research question is:

p. 11, lines 462-464, What are the main gaps between engineering graduates and quantity surveyors of construction enterprises regarding the personal competencies needed to cope with changing and increasing client needs?

The comprehensive analysis done by the authors provides great insight into these gaps. However, there does not seem to be a connection to the question of how the gaps relate to the sustainability of education (the central topic of this special issue).

Can the authors make a case that closing this gap would somehow make education more sustainable? Is there evidence about lack of support for engineering education in China because of their inability to cope with changing and increasing client needs? 

To align with this special issue, it seems the manuscript would need a major revision that provided evidence, however small, that supported the idea that having a gap between the competencies of two different employment roles (engineering v. quantity surveyors) was somehow degrading the sustainability of education. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript entitled “Investigating the Gaps Between Engineering Graduates and Quantity Surveyors of Construction Enterprises” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2880276). These comments were all valuable and very helpful in revising and improving our paper and provided important guidance for our research. We have studied each comment carefully and have made corrections that we hope will be met with your approval. The revised portions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

We would like to express our great appreciation to the editors and reviewers for the comments concerning our paper. We look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Ping Zhang*, Shuai-Ge Ma, Ying Sun and Yue-Nan Zhao

Corresponding author: Ping Zhang

Email address: [email protected]

Please see the attachment for specific modifications and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article entitled: "Investigating the Gaps Between Engineering Graduates and Quantity Surveyors of Construction Enterprises" is a good contribution to the journal Sustainability and more specifically to the section: Sustainable Education: Theories, Practices and Approaches. The connection between the labour market and the university training of professionals is the key to the contribution.The concepts dealt with in the study are described and addressed in a relevant way. On the other hand, the existing gaps with regard to the topic under study are well identified, providing a good argumentation for the research problem. Methodologically, the phases of the research are well formulated, the size of the participant sample is adequate for the results to be meaningful and the analysis of the results is coherent. Also the statistics applied to the instrument used are correct. As far as the conclusions are concerned, they are significant and corroborate the expectations of the researchers; this element is complemented by the contribution of the limitations of the study. A total of 108 references were used, of which more than 25% are from the last five years. Therefore, from the researcher's point of view, the article has no weaknesses and can be considered for inclusion in the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript entitled “Investigating the Gaps Between Engineering Graduates and Quantity Surveyors of Construction Enterprises” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2880276). These comments were all valuable and very helpful in revising and improving our paper and provided important guidance for our research. We have studied each comment carefully and have made corrections that we hope will be met with your approval. The revised portions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

We would like to express our great appreciation to the editors and reviewers for the comments concerning our paper. We look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Ping Zhang*, Shuai-Ge Ma, Ying Sun and Yue-Nan Zhao

Corresponding author: Ping Zhang

Email address: [email protected]

Please see the attachment for specific modifications and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the time the authors took to directly respond to my comments.  It seems to me that I and the authors continue to have misalignment in what we are seeing as the intent of the Special Issue. 

I interpret the Special Issue Dear Colleague text to call for perspectives about on the sustainability of education, specifically  My conclusion is based on these sentences: 

'As a crucial component of human society, education has been considered “one of the most powerful and proven vehices for sustainable development” (the United Nations, 2022). This vehicle, however, needs to be sustainable by itself to support the sustainable development of the world.  There may not be a consensual definition of sustainable education; however, its importance has been generally acknowledged. Without a sustainable education, teaching may be significantly disrupted, learning progress may be stalled, motivation and self-efficacy may decrease, mental health may suffer, and the most vulnerable may be hit the hardest.'

The authors state the following in their response: 

'Furthermore, the competency gaps between engineering graduates and quantity surveyors of construction enterprises have not threatened the sustainability of education, and it is

understandable that engineering graduates have a gap with practicing quantity surveyors in core

competencies because of their limited practical work experience. The central idea that this paper aims to convey is that our professional education should keep up with the development of the times and the industry.'

As stated by the authors (above) in their response, the manuscript as it stands does not address the sustainability of education; it is focused on a belief that professional education should serve existing market needs.  While this neoliberal perspective is indeed common throughout the world, it is not universal; many institutes of higher education at least in the U.S., but I would assert elsewhere, intend to create new paths ("innovate"), to anticipate the future needs of society and lead market directions.  

So, the revision that I request is the following in the abstract so that the reader might understand how this paper aligns with the special issue topic:  State the papers' core assumption early in Abstract, something like:

 "This paper defines sustainable education for construction as one that meets the future workforce demands of the construction industry."                

Also, in the revised text, lines 975-992, I encourage the following: 

Consider deleting the first sentence, lines 975-976. 

Consider beginning this paragraph with the sentence in line 979, beginning "The match..."

Followed by the sentence, like 976, beginning "For example, ..."

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript entitled “Investigating the Gaps Between Engineering Graduates and Quantity Surveyors of Construction Enterprises” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2880276). These comments were all valuable and very helpful in revising and improving our paper and provided important guidance for our research. We have studied each comment carefully and have made corrections that we hope will be met with your approval. The revised portions are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

We would like to express our great appreciation to the editors and reviewers for the comments concerning our paper. We look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Ping Zhang*, Shuai-Ge Ma, Ying Sun and Yue-Nan Zhao

Corresponding author: Ping Zhang

Email address: [email protected]

Please see the attachment for specific modifications and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf