دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی کارآفرینی و روابط مدیریت پروژه: همگویی محاوره ای و دیدگاه لومانی - امرالد 2018

Abstract

Purpose – Both project investments and entrepreneurial ventures are considered powerful catalysts of economic prosperity and social progress. But these ventures and investments come with their inherent challenges and risks. Observing this situation, academics have paid close attention to the fields of entrepreneurship and project management (E&PM). Thus, for over 30 years, the two fields have witnessed remarkable developments among management and organization studies. The historical perspective reveals that these two multidisciplinary fields were built in parallel, on very distinct mindsets and cultures. The purpose of this paper is to offer a wider dialogic conversation between two distinct perspectives and related propositions: E&PM should stay separated; and E&PM should converge. Design/methodology/approach – In order to guide the investigation of these propositions, the authors call for Luhmann and a systemic-discursive perspective of both fields discourses. Ultimately, the purpose is to contribute to the debate surrounding the following questions: are E&PM fields so far from each other, and thus, irreconcilable? And, if so, is it so good? Findings – Finally, the authors will suggest that E&PM may stay far from each other as they do not share similar discourses and codes. This may be a good state of affairs, however, as distance generates a fruitful creative tension between them. Originality/value – While many researchers focus on linking E&PM, arguing that they largely agree as to their underlying goal, the paper aims to offer a wider dialogical conversation between the two distinct perspectives and their related propositions: E&PM should stay separate; and E&PM should converge. In order to do so, this paper calls for a Luhmannian and a systemic-discursive perspective.

Discussion and conclusion

To our first question, are E&PM fields so far from each other and thus, irreconcilable? The answer may be yes! We can argue that the two fields are grounded in two different discourses and codes, and therefore “differ fundamentally in the way they process meaning” (Seidl, 2007, p. 205). E&PM research works have also two distinct institutional statuses, further emphasizing the distance between them. The academic status of a research discipline can be assessed by the number and the impact factors of related journals, and by the place occupied by the discipline in the university: has it been assigned a faculty, a school, a department, a discipline or a subject matter expertise within a department? Based on the Scopus database journal list and CiteScore, Table II summarizes some key facts and figures. First, considering the active publications, we find 24 journals in entrepreneurship (E) and 8 journals in PM in 2016. Second, observing the CiteScore 2016, three journals in entrepreneurship have higher CiteScore than 3, the highest being 5.39, while two journals in PM have a score above this threshold, with the highest being 4.58. However, the average CiteScore for entrepreneurship journals (1.22) is lower than the one for PM journals (1.72). Furthermore, considering the evolution of CiteScore since 2011, we note that PM scores higher on average (Figure 1).