مقاله سال ۲۰۱۶

Reports continue of project’s having ‘failed’, running over time and over budget (Love et al., 2012). This suggests that, despite a wealth of research and the availability of project management handbooks (Turner, 2009; Morris and Pinto, 2007), there remain gaps in our knowledge concerning projects. A number of authors have stressed that to attend to these gaps new approaches to research are needed (Turner et al., 2010; Smyth and Morris, 2007; Cicmil et al., 2006; Williams, 2005; Morris, 2002; EURAM Sig). Underpinning these calls is an acknowledgment that the conventional positivist based approach to researching projects is, on its own, insufficient to provide a comprehensive understanding of project phenomena. Williams (2005), for example, highlights that the conventional approach takes only limited account of human factors and intricate relationships between project components and that both these are highly salient in explaining project behavior such as cost and time overrruns.

The need to widen approaches to project management research is echoed by Winter et al. (2006) who, in rethinking project management, call for more research to be undertaken with particular emphasis on Theory ABOUT Practice, Theory FOR Practice, and Theory IN Practice. This reflects a more integrative and potentially systemic approach to research which is in contrast with the atomic, discrete approach of the conventional positivist perspective. The emphases put forward by Winter et al. (2006) are elaborated by Bredillet (2013) who adds three further emphases, namely Theory From Practice, Theorising In Practice and Theorising As Practicing. Additionally, both of these calls reflect project management researchers’ growing interest in management research in general, in particular Mode 2 research (Pettigrew, 2001; Tranfield and Starkey, 1998). Mode 2 research combines rigour and relevance to produce research that achieves the dual objectives of applied use (contribution to practice) and advancing fundamental understanding (contribution to theory) (Van De Ven and Johnson, 2006). This widening of research emphases in project management resonates with Turner et al.’s (2010) identification of nine schools of project management research.

In response to the above calls for a broadening of approaches to researching projects, this paper proposes a causal mapping technique (Bryson et al., 2004; Eden, 1988). In the project management literature a small number of researchers have already reported effective use of causal mapping (Williams, 2015; Edkins et al., 2007; Maytorena et al., 2004; Williams et al., 1995). However, with few exceptions (Edkins et al. (2007)), these are not dedicated to exploration of the technique itself but rather they concentrate on illuminating features germane to a particular application. Consequently, issues such as the theoretical grounding, strengths and weakness, and alternative ways of applying causal mapping remain under explored in a project management context. If causal mapping is adopted without consideration of these issues, the danger is that methodological confusion might ensue bringing the integrity of the approach and resultant findings into question.