۱- Introduction

۲- The research questions

۳- The research method

۴- Paradigm change explanations in project management literature

۵- Important criticisms of previous explanations

۶- Postmodern criticisms and participative project management

۷- Future of participation paradigm

۸- Conclusion

Reference

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the philosophical changes which underpin research and practices in project management. This study is an attempt to challenge previous studies that have tried to explain this change in order to provide a better explanation. Design/methodology/approach – The authors adopt a critical review research method to challenge previous explanations of the paradigm change and definition of communication. For this purpose, philosophical and social theories and concepts have been used. Findings – This paper proposed changing the paradigm from modernism to postmodernism and the paradigm shift, which happens from postmodernism to participation, as a better explanation for the paradigmatic change in project management. Furthermore, the important role of communication has been illustrated in the participation paradigm. Originality/value – For the first time in project management, the authors attempt to clarify the role of power in this paradigmatic shift, especially because this concept is an axial concept in postmodern philosophy and a neglected concept in project management literature. In addition, communicative action theory has been used with the aim of pursuing the influence of informal power in the participation paradigm and paving the way for confronting its emerging challenges in future studies.

Introduction

Some researchers have tried to explain changes that have occurred in project management studies and practice (Hällgren, 2012; Ingason and Jónasson, 2009; Kwak and Anbari, 2009; Floricel et al., 2014; Soderlund, 2004; Packendorff, 1995; Gauthier and Ika, 2012; Ika and Söderlund, 2016), and some of them explained these changes from a philosophical point of view, using the paradigm concept (Pollack, 2007; Hoorn and Whitty, 2014; Smyth and Morris, 2007; Luc Lalonde et al., 2010; Biedenbach and Jacobsson, 2016; Biedenbach and Müller, 2011). In Kuhn’s (1996) view, the scientific paradigm is a “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners.” In other words, the paradigm is a collection of conscious and unconscious assumptions that, for a certain period of time, shapes a researchers’ and practitioners’ worldview in different areas. However, this concept was raised in the philosophy of science, but in many types of research in project management is used without enough attention to its philosophical roots (Qi and Chen, 2014; Tanaka, 2014; Zhang, 2013; Yang, Chen, and Wang, 2015; Yang, Zou, and Wang, 2015). Nowadays, there is a common belief amongst the project management community regarding the profound change in project ontology that underpins research and practice (Gauthier and Ika, 2012; Biedenbach and Müller, 2011), but there are different interpretations that explain this change. On the one hand, the multiplicity of explanations is very beneficial (Geraldi et al., 2008, Pinto and Winch, 2016) but at the same time can lead to some kind of ambiguity in project management research, and consequently, practice.