Is the project management field suffering from methodological inertia? Looking for evidence in publications in a recently established journal

Scales, J; Sankaran, S; Cameron, R

Is the project management field suffering from methodological inertia? Looking for evidence in publications in a recently established journal

Scales, J

Sankaran, S

Cameron, R

Permalink

Publisher:: .EURAM
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Procedings of EURAM 2015 (European Academy of Management) Conference., 2015, pp. 1 - 18
Issue Date:: 2015-06-20

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (198.61 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Scales, J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7201-6923	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sankaran, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-6216	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cameron, R	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Yamak, S	en_US
dc.date	2015-06-17	en_US
dc.date.available	2015-04-01	en_US
dc.date.issued	2015-06-20	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Procedings of EURAM 2015 (European Academy of Management) Conference., 2015, pp. 1 - 18	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/42013
dc.description.abstract	Project management (PM) researchers have traditionally used quantitative methods in their research due to the origins of this practice-based discipline in defence and engineering. Although qualitative methods are starting to be used in PM research, most of the qualitative research reported tends to use case studies. Recently, there has been a call for PM researchers to use more novel methods to increase the variety of methods used by the researcher in the field contributing to its further development (Drouin, Muller and Sankaran 2013; Cameron, Sankaran and Scales 2015). A review of papers presented at the International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) conference in Berlin in 2009 showed a surprising trend that papers presented at these conferences used more qualitative methods in comparison with articles published in key PM journals. This paper analyses articles published over the past six years in a comparatively new PM journal, since its inception, to explore whether the new journal has motivated PM researchers to overcome their methodological inertia and broaden the variety of research methods they use. A mixed methods prevalence study was undertaken on articles published in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPiB) from 2008 to 2014 (n=265). The findings point to methodological inertia in the majority of research but also an unusually high proportion of the use of mixed methods. Future research is needed to add finer granularity to the analysis.	en_US
dc.publisher	.EURAM	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Procedings of EURAM 2015 (European Academy of Management) Conference.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management	en_US
dc.title	Is the project management field suffering from methodological inertia? Looking for evidence in publications in a recently established journal	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	Warsaw	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Warsaw	en_US
utslib.for	120201 Building Construction Management and Project Planning	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Built Environment
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCDP - Contemporary Design Practice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2015-06-20	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Warsaw	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.start-date	2015-06-17	en_US

Abstract:

Project management (PM) researchers have traditionally used quantitative methods in their research due to the origins of this practice-based discipline in defence and engineering. Although qualitative methods are starting to be used in PM research, most of the qualitative research reported tends to use case studies. Recently, there has been a call for PM researchers to use more novel methods to increase the variety of methods used by the researcher in the field contributing to its further development (Drouin, Muller and Sankaran 2013; Cameron, Sankaran and Scales 2015). A review of papers presented at the International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) conference in Berlin in 2009 showed a surprising trend that papers presented at these conferences used more qualitative methods in comparison with articles published in key PM journals. This paper analyses articles published over the past six years in a comparatively new PM journal, since its inception, to explore whether the new journal has motivated PM researchers to overcome their methodological inertia and broaden the variety of research methods they use. A mixed methods prevalence study was undertaken on articles published in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPiB) from 2008 to 2014 (n=265). The findings point to methodological inertia in the majority of research but also an unusually high proportion of the use of mixed methods. Future research is needed to add finer granularity to the analysis.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/42013