LAS PRIMERAS HERRAMIENTAS DE BÚSQUEDA

Many research methods are used in social sciences and they have different weaknesses and strengths (Eisenhardt, 1989; Kvale, Brinkmann, Anderssen, & Rygge, 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Neville, 2005; Sismondo, 2004; Tjora, 2012; Yin, 2003). According to (Smyth & Morris, 2007), survey questionnaires, case studies, interviews, conceptual modelling, structured models, semi-structured interviews, and ethnographic studies are the most common methods in use in project management studies today.

When starting a research process, a scholar’s knowledge of what exists in terms of theory will be more or less insufficient. It can be argued that there theories and concepts exist on almost every topic, and that most research is about reinventing the wheel over and over again. Moreover, when the research process is started it is impossible to have a complete picture of all theories that might be relevant for solving the problem or exploring the idea in question. I therefore recommend that a good, relevant literature study should be one of the first activities in most research projects.

Literature studies

The word ‘research’ is a combination of two elements – ‘re’ and ‘search’ – and one understanding of this word is thus ‘look again’. Mankind has developed theories and concept to help us to understand the world around us since we were first able to communicate with each other. Today, students and scholars can discover and discuss theories developed by Socrates (b. 470 BC), Plato (b. 428 BC), and Aristotle (b. 384 BC) because they were recorded in writing and preserved for future generations.

The purpose of a literature study is either (1) to find out what has been published on the specific topic under investigation or (2) to identify any patterns in previously published literature. Most of the research done within project management during the last 100 year is available, and accessible via the

Internet. However, that does not mean that conducting a good and relevant literature study is a simple task, as the following considerations indicate:

x What are the right places to search?

x all written texts that exist?

x all journals and PM books in the local library?

x all international PM journals or all management journals, or both places?

x only internal journals on project management?

x what types of databases should be used – the BIBSYS database (in Norwegian national libraries and/or international libraries)?

x What is the right time period?

x the last 100 years?

x the last two or three decades?

x What are the search terms for the inquiry?

x ‘risk’ or ‘risk management’, ‘uncertainty’ or ‘uncertainty management’ (my search conducted via Google gave 253,000,000 results for ‘risk’, 95,000,000 results for ‘risk management’, 25,600,000 results for ‘uncertainty’, and 13,200,000 results for

‘uncertainty management’)

x uncertainty or uncertainty management?

x risk and opportunity?

x threats and opportunity management?

Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge and questions what knowledge is, how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge that is pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Smyth and Morris (2007) discuss what types of research methodology have been dominant in project management research. In their paper ‘An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: Methodological issues’ they review papers published in the International Journal of Project Management in 2005, in total 68 papers in 8 issues, including 1 special issue: the Sixth Biennial Conference of the International Research Network for Organising by Projects (IRNOP) (Smyth & Morris, 2007). They evaluate whether recent research had applied methodologies appropriately in terms of epistemology, the integrity of the methodologies, and the context in which they were applied in project management research.

Smyth and Morris (2007) found that positivist and empiricist traditions were the most common methodologies in PM research. Both methodologies explain events based on the human law of causality, and linear thinking is dominant. This creates a preference for closed cause–effect models in project management research. Smyth and Morris’s study also shows what types of methods were preferred by the scholars in the project management field in 2005; survey questionnaires, case studies, and interviews were common:

x Survey questionnaire (26) x Case study (11)

x Case studies (10) x Interviews (9)

x Conceptual modelling/model (5)

x Structured and/or semi-structured interviews (3) x Ethnographic studies (2)

Positivism in project management research

According to (Smyth & Morris, 2007) positivism has been dominant historically in research on projects: ‘It underpins the PMBOK Guide. Positivism, in its various forms, pursues generalizations in order to establish principles or laws to govern its object. This might suggest it is the most appropriate methodology for a practitioner-oriented discipline like project management’ (Smyth &

Morris, 2007).

Empiricism in project management research

(Smyth & Morris, 2007) argue that empiricism acknowledges that insufficient is known about a given topic to conceptualize or generalize, and therefore the facts have to be investigated to discover the truth. Empiricism takes a number of different forms. It places primacy upon observation and data, usually seeks to observe without theory, and uses evidence to induce generalizations and build theory. As with positivism, there is a strong instrumentalist current, endeavouring to identify practices and tools that may prove useful. Empiricism has been used in cases where researchers wanted to decouple themselves from existing belief systems, whether theist or paradigmatic. It has been used in cases where little or nothing is yet known, which is not the case concerning the management of projects (Smyth & Morris, 2007)

The study by (Smyth & Morris, 2007) illustrates a further point, namely that a large number of qualitative and quantitative research methods are used in the project management field today. Also, these methods have an impact on the types of results and conclusions that can be drawn from the research. Smyth and Morris conclude that very often there is a lack of evidence of understanding or of integrity in the methodological application in many of the papers they had examined. For example, they found that positivism was applied in six papers taking a case study approach and that several articles applied positivism using a single case, which methodologically is contradictory.

Several other scholars have gone through journals in the field of project management (Betts &

Lansley, 1995; Crawford, Pollack, & England, 2006; P. W. Morris, 2011; Pollack & Adler, 2014; G.

Themistocleous & S. Wearne, 2000; G. Themistocleous & S. H. Wearne, 2000) and tried to find pattern in themes and what has been in focus in PM research. Particularly good examples of this type of work are Crawford et al.’s paper ‘Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years’ (Crawford et al., 2006) and Pollack and Adler’s paper ‘Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field’ (Pollack & Adler, 2015). Scientometric techniques is a research method that has also been referred to as knowledge domain visualization or domain mapping, and can be considered a part of the more general field of information visualization. These types of studies are helpful when researchers are trying to find patterns and schools of thoughts, they also summarize what that has been on the research agenda in recent decades, and they are also helpful in the sense that they review and summarize what has been done and what has been cited, thereby making it easier for other researchers to find literature that could be interesting to read when a new study is planned and conducted.

Survey

Surveys involve the selection of representative and unbiased samples of subjects drawn from the groups to be studied. The main methods involve asking questions face-to-face or by telephone, or sending a questionnaires by post or e-mail. The researcher will typically use structured interviews,

typically with multiple choice or semi-structures questionnaires, or they will use multiple choice or more open-ended questionnaires that allow respondents to state their own opinions, and they may record the data gathering process using an audio recorder (Kvale, et al., 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 1995). There are two main types of survey: descriptive and analytical (Kvale, et al., 2009; Marshall &

Rossman, 1995). Descriptive surveys are concerned with identifying and counting the frequency of a particular response among the survey group, whereas analytical surveys are concerned with analysing the relationships between different elements (variables) in a sample group.

Interviews: structured and semi-structured approach

According to Kvale et al. (2009), interviews should be carried out in seven stages:

1. Deciding the purpose (Why is the research done?)

2. Plan the research (how, when, and who) – developing and testing the interview guide 3. Conducting the interviews

4. Summing up the interviews or transcriptions of the data

5. Analysing and coding the data (What can be learned or extracted?) 6. Verification – Is generalizing possible based on the method and findings?

7. Reporting – presenting use of methods and discoveries (findings)

When transcription is used at stage 4, all spoken words are written down just as they were said during the interview. The interviewer will typically use an audio recorder or a video camera in the process and then afterwards write down the questions, answers, remarks, and all other noises. A full transcription of an interview gives ‘rich data’ but it is a quiet time-consuming process to process the data afterwards. If the interview is conducted by two researcher, it is possible for one of the interviewers to write down keywords and short sentences during the interview and then supplement the records (summing up and filling in the gaps in the narratives) directly after the interviews have been completed. This will give less accurate data than a full transcription because there is a risk that the summing up may be biased by the interviewers’ interpretations; instead of writing down what the respondent said, the interviewer may tend to write down what they believe was said or what they think was interesting, and therefore some parts that might not have seemed relevant would be left out. However, this process is less time consuming than a full transcription and the errors can at least partly be avoided by checking the recordings of the interviews or by letting the interviewees check the summarized version of the interviews. It is also possible to let respondents read through a summary and comment on the notes, to ensure that misunderstandings are minimized.

Case study

Case studies offer researchers an opportunity to study a particular subject, such as one organization, in depth, or to study a group of people, and usually involve gathering and analysing information that may be both qualitative and quantitative. According to (Eisenhardt, 1989), a case study is a research strategy that focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings. In case studies typically a combination of methods are used in the data collection such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations, and the ‘evidence’ may be qualitative (e.g. words), quantitative (e.g. numbers), or both. Yin (2003) claims that case studies can involve either single or multiple cases and numerous levels of analysis or they can employ an embedded design (i.e. multiple levels of analysis within a single study, Case studies typically combine data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations. Lastly, case studies can be used to accomplish

various aims such as providing descriptions and testing, generating, and formulating theories. Thus, case studies can be:

x Descriptive (e.g. where current practice is described in detail)

x Illustrative (e.g. where the case studies illustrate new practices adopted by an organization) x Experimental (e.g. where difficulties in adopting new practices or procedures are examined) x Explanatory (e.g. where theories are used as a basis for understanding and explaining

practices or procedures).

Some scholars; has according to (Flyvbjerg, 2006) been sceptical and critical of the use of case study as a research method in project management because of the problems of falsification and the fact that the summarizing and analysis of the data tends to be biased by the researcher’s views in single-case studies. Abercromie et al. state:

The detailed examination of a single example of a class of phenomena, a case study cannot provide reliable information about the broader class, but it may be useful in the preliminary stages of an investigation since it provides hypotheses, which may be tested systematically with a larger number of cases (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 1984).

Flyvbjerg (2006) claims there are five misunderstandings in use of case studies:

1. Theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge

2. One cannot generalize from a single case, and therefore the single case study cannot contribute to scientific development

3. The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building

4. The case study contains a bias toward verification 5. It is often difficult to summarize specific case studies.

These five misunderstandings indicate that theory, reliability, and validity are problematic and hence the status of the case study as a scientific method. However, according to Flyvbjerg case studies take researchers closest to real-life situations, and are the best way to study the details and view how human behaviour plays a role in projects. Further, Flyvbjerg argues:

If researchers wish to develop their own skills to a high level, then concrete, context-dependent experience is just as central for them as to professionals learning any other specific skills. Concrete experiences can be achieved via continued proximity to the studied reality and via feedback from those under study. Great distance to the object of study and lack of feedback easily lead to a stultified learning process, which in research can lead to ritual academic blind alleys, where the effect and usefulness of research becomes unclear and untested. As a research method, the case study can be an effective remedy against this tendency. (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 6)

Case studies are in fact useful for both generating and testing of hypotheses but are not limited to these research activities alone (Flyvbjerg, 2006)

Flyvbjerg states that ‘testing of theory’ can be understood in both a hard and soft sense. In the hard sense, testing of theory is understood as something that comprises explanation and prediction,

whereas in the soft sense it comprises testing propositions or hypotheses. Further, Flyvbjerg argues that case studies are ideal for making generalizations when g using the type of test that Karl Popper called ‘falsification’, which in social science forms part of critical reflexivity (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 11), as a case study ‘contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry. On the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.

21). A good case study will have rich data and be open to many interpretations, and therefore summarizing case studies is often difficult, especially regarding the processing of cases. It is less correct as regards case outcomes. However, the problems in summarizing case studies are more often due to the properties of the reality studied than to the case study as a research method.

Furthermore, despite the difficulty or undesirability of summarizing case studies, in general the case study method can certainly contribute to the cumulative development of knowledge (Flyvbjerg 2006, p. 25). Flyvbjerg concludes that a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and that a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective discipline:

Good social science is problem-driven and not methodology-driven, in the sense that it employs those methods which for a given problematic best help answer the research questions at hand. More often than not, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods will do the task best. (Flyvbjerg, 2006)

(Eisenhardt, 1989) shares some of the same ideas as Flyvbjerg, and claims that the strengths of building theory by case studies are that case studies give a likelihood of generating novel theory.

Although one myth surrounding theory building from case studies is that the process is limited by the investigators’ preconceptions, in fact the opposite is true. The constant juxtaposition of conflicting realities tends to ‘unfreeze’ thinking, and therefore the process has the potential to generate theory with less researcher bias than theory built from the results of incremental studies or ‘armchair, axiomatic deduction’. The emergent theory is likely to be testable with constructs that can be readily measured and hypotheses that can be proven false. Measurable constructs are likely because they have already been measured during the theory-building process. The resulting hypotheses are likely to be verifiable for the same reason. The resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid. The likelihood of valid theory is high because the theory building process is so closely linked to the evidence that it is very likely that the resultant theory will be consistent with empirical observation.

In well-executed theory building research, investigators answer to the data from the beginning of their research. This closeness can lead to a clear sense of things (i.e. ‘how they feel, smell, seem’).

This close interaction with actual evidence often produces theory that closely mirrors reality.

However, Eisenhardt (1989) points to some weaknesses in theory building from cases. For example, the intensive use of empirical evidence can yield theory that is overly complex. A hallmark of good theory is parsimony, but given the typically enormous volume of rich data, there is a temptation to build theory intended to capture everything. The result can be theory that is very rich in detail, but lacks the simplicity of an overall perspective. There is also a risk that building theory from cases may result in narrow and idiosyncratic theory. Case-study theory building is typically a bottom-up approach, such that the specifics of the data produce the generalizations of theory. The risks are that the theory describes a very idiosyncratic phenomenon or that the theorist is unable to raise the level of generality of the theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Action research

Action research is collective term for research methods where the data gathering and the research is done in connection with the research object. In action research, the intervention from the researcher will influence the situations that they monitor and evaluate, and the researcher will not just observe from distance but will be a part of the process that they are investigating. An action research approach allows the researcher to work with the client to identify a particular objective (e.g. ways of identifying opportunities and threats) as well as how to document it and follow it up in a risk matrix.

The researcher enters the situation by, for example, introducing new techniques, and then monitors the results. This type of research requires active co-operation between researcher and client and a continual process of adjustment to the intervention in the light of new information and responses to it from respondents. According to (Dick, 2014), there are several types of approach under the common label of ‘action research’. Action research is responsive and flexible, and is undertaken in cycles, whereby the content and choice of methodology in the later cycles are informed by the earlier cycles (Figure 5).

Action

Understanding Informs

Informs Figure 5 Action research – cycles in action

Method and data and interpretation and action develop simultaneously and from cycle to cycle together with the respondent. In action research, the inquiry and data gathering can be conducted in several ways, such as through interviews, situational observations, field notes, focus groups, and work colleague interviews, which indicate that it tends to be qualitative in its approach. The data collection is normally followed by data transcription data analyses and reflection. These steps can be repeated in several cycles before the process concludes in concepts and theory (Algeo, 2014). In action research, the distance between the researcher and the informant is often limited, and in the interests of building commitment to action, the researcher can play an active role in the process and

Method and data and interpretation and action develop simultaneously and from cycle to cycle together with the respondent. In action research, the inquiry and data gathering can be conducted in several ways, such as through interviews, situational observations, field notes, focus groups, and work colleague interviews, which indicate that it tends to be qualitative in its approach. The data collection is normally followed by data transcription data analyses and reflection. These steps can be repeated in several cycles before the process concludes in concepts and theory (Algeo, 2014). In action research, the distance between the researcher and the informant is often limited, and in the interests of building commitment to action, the researcher can play an active role in the process and