Abstract
This article examines how opportunities for contributions are created in project research. In the article the arguments that underlie research question constructions are analyzed and their role in theory construction is reflected upon. The analysis is based upon a review of 61 papers published between 2007 and 2011 in the four major project management outlets. The results show that questions identify gaps and extend literature rather than challenge the theoretical assumptions. It is argued that the dominance of “gap spotting” hampers the development of the project field by producing theories that do not challenge long-held, sometimes possibly false, assumptions. Researchers are therefore urged to become bolder in their claims, some suggestions on how to achieve this are offered.
1. Introduction
With the proliferation of papers dealing with projects in the top-tier management journals, the recent birth of new dedicated project management journals, the inclusion of the established project journals in the Social Science Citation Index and an increased industry diffusion creating a tremendous impact in working practices, it is about time to examine how opportunities for contributions are created in project research. Research questions are fundamental in that they set the scope, aim or contribution to academia or to practice. Well-grounded and carefully formulated research questions may extend old ideas and develop new ideas. Simply, the kinds of research questions that are asked determine what theories are eventually produced.
5. Conclusions
Theorists are not remembered for having carefully chiseled out extensions of existing theories. Nor are great theories achieved without challenging basic assumptions. Without the careful chiseling research areas however run the risk of losing its credibility. Nevertheless, the research question is an integrated part of either craftsmanship. Since the research questions' constructions were reviewed with reference to how they were expressed in the papers' texts, the present paper cannot say anything about how the research question was constructed beyond that text. Therefore, the analysis is limited to what is written. Neither does this paper focus upon whether the results were “interesting” per se, but merely upon the created opportunities for becoming interesting.
