Reduzindo a lacuna entre pesquisa e prática em gestão de projetos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/gep.v12i3.17227Palavras-chave:
Lacuna pesquisa-prática, Projeto como prática, Implicações práticas, Pesquisa prática, Gerenciamento de projetosResumo
A área de Gerenciamento de Projetos (GP) é um domínio orientado à prática, mas as abordagens baseadas na prática permanecem sub-representadas em comparação com estudos teóricos e empíricos. Este cenário abre espaço para um melhor entendimento de como promover o engajamento entre acadêmicos e profissionais para estudar tópicos relevantes para a prática, que têm um efeito diário nas partes interessadas em GP. Este artigo visa contribuir com recomendações sobre formas compreensíveis de engajamento de pesquisa com profissionais que abordarão a lacuna da prática de pesquisa em GP. As recomendações estão alicerçadas na lacuna prática-pesquisa apontada por pesquisadores da Administração e de GP. Elas são escritas como ações para promover o envolvimento de profissionais que trabalham com projetos de pesquisa orientados à prática, para chamar a atenção de editores e responsáveis por conferências para tornar os profissionais parte da literatura de campo de GP e preencher a lacuna deixada por pesquisadores que negligenciam contribuições de utilidade prática. As recomendações também estão associadas ao processo de pesquisa e publicação, redação de teses, dissertações, artigos, relatórios e à comunidade de GP. Assim, o artigo tem uma dupla contribuição: 1. Conscientizar sobre o surgimento de pesquisas envolvendo profissionais e acadêmicos por meio de diferentes projetos de pesquisa; e 2. Fornecer uma compilação de ações para melhorar o engajamento entre profissionais e pesquisadores.
Referências
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291-1315.
Avison, D. E., Davison, R. M., & Malaurent, J. (2018). Information systems action research: Debunking myths and overcoming barriers. Information & Management, 55(2), 177-187.
Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O'Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the research-practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73-92.
Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2018). Bridging the research-practice divide: Harnessing expertise collaboration in making a wider set of contributions. Information and Organization, 28(1), 44-51.
Bechara, J. P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Philosophy of science underlying engaged scholarship. Engaged Scholarship, 12(2), 233-239.
Blomquist, T., Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A., & Söderholm, A. (2010). Project-as-practice: In search of project management research that matters. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5-16.
Bredillet, C., Tywoniak, S., & Dwivedula, R. (2015). What is a good project manager? An Aristotelian perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 254-266.
Buchan, L., & Simpson, B. (2020). Projects-as-practice: A Deweyan perspective. Project Management Journal, 51(1), 38-48.
Cameron, R., Sankaran, S., & Scales, J. (2015). Mixed methods use in project management research. Project Management Journal, 46(2), 90-104.
Cater-Steel, A. Toleman, M. & Rajaeian, M. M. (2019). Design Science Research in Doctoral Projects: An Analysis of Australian Theses. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(12), 1844-1869.
Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. Routledge.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675-686.
Clegg, S., Killen, C. P., Biesenthal, C., & Sankaran, S. (2018). Practices, projects and portfolios: Current research trends and new directions. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 762-772.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281-1303.
Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., & Winter, M. (2006). Practitioner development: From trained technicians to reflective practitioners. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 722-733.
Davidson, E., & Barrett, M. (2018). Introduction to the Research Impact and Contributions to Knowledge (RICK) Section. Information and Organization 28 (A1-A3).
Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65-86.
Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Malaurent, J. (2021). Research Perspectives: Improving Action Research by Integrating Methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems: 22(3), Article 1.
Deng, Q., & Ji, S. (2018). A review of design science research in information systems: concept, process, outcome, and evaluation. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(1).
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt and Co.
El Pais (2019). Cortes de verbas desmontam ciência brasileira e restringem pesquisa a mais ricos. Available at https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2019/09/03/politica/1567542296_718545.html. Last access: May, 15th 2020.
Eskerod, P., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies and practices during a project course. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 71-85.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240-1253.
Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M., & Sergi, V. (2014). Extending project management research: Insights from social theories. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1091-1107.
FSP (2018). Oferta de mestrados profissionais triplica em dez anos no país. Available at https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/sobretudo/carreiras/2018/10/1983632-oferta-de-mestrados-profissionais-triplica-em-dez-anos-no-pais.shtml. Last access: May 4, 2020.
Fuller, R. Buckminster (1957). A Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science. Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. 34. Retrieved 2020-05-09 – via Google Books.
Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2016). Project studies and engaged scholarship. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 767-797.
Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2018). Project studies: What it is, where it is going. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 55-70.
Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research. Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems.
Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775-782.
Hallgren, M., & Soderholm, A. (2011). Projects- as- practice: New approach, new insights. In P. W. G. Morris, J. Pinto, & J. Soderlund (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford University Press.
Henriques, T.A. & O’Neill, H. (2021). Design science research with focus groups – a pragmatic meta-model. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2020-0015
Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design science research in information systems. In Design research in information systems (pp. 9-22). Springer, Boston, MA.
Hirschheim, R. (2019). Against theory: With apologies to Feyerabend. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(9), 8.
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A. P. (2009). Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decision Sciences, 40(1), 65-87.
Hovorka, D. S., Rowe, F., Markus, L., Jarvenpaa, S., Swanson, E. B., Lacity, M. & Hirschheim, R. (2019). Scholarly Commentaries on Hirschheim’s “Against Theory”. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(9), 12.
Ikemoto, M.; Gantman, S.; Chaves, M. S. & Russo, R. (2020). SOME4PM: A Prescriptive Model for Guiding Integrated Use of Social Media in Project Management. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 19(4), 330–364.
Ireland, R. D. (2012). Management Research and Managerial Practice: A complex and controversial relationship. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 11(2), 263-271.
Kalogeropoulos, T., Leopoulos, V., Kirytopoulos, K., & Ventoura, Z. (2020). Project-as-Practice: Applying Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice on Project Managers. Project Management Journal, 8756972820913392.
Lalonde, P. L., Bourgault, M., & Findeli, A. (2012). An empirical investigation of the project situation: PM practice as an inquiry process. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 418-431.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity, 43(2), 265-275.
Louw, T., & Rwelamila, P. D. (2012). Project management training curricula at South African public universities: Is the balanced demand of the profession sufficiently accommodated?. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 70-80.
Makin, S. (2021). The research-practice gap as a pragmatic knowledge boundary. Information and Organization, 100334.
Moeini, M., Rahrovani, Y., & Chan, Y. E. (2019). A review of the practical relevance of IS strategy scholarly research. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 196-217.
Müller, R., & Söderlund, J. (2015). Innovative approaches in project management research. International Journal of Project Management, 2(33), 251-253.
Myers, M. D. (1997). Critical ethnography in information systems. In Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 276-300). Springer, Boston, MA.
Narayanan, V. K., & Huemann, M. (2021). Engaging the organizational field: The case of project practices in a construction firm to contribute to an emerging economy. International Journal of Project Management.
Narazaki, R.; Chaves, M. S. & Pedron, C. (2020). A project knowledge management framework grounded in design science research. Knowledge and Process Management, 27(3), 197-210.
Nenonen, S., Brodie, R. J., Storbacka, K., & Peters, L. D. (2017). Theorizing with managers: how to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance?. European Journal of Marketing. 51 (7/8), pp. 1130-1152.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. OUP Oxford.
Niederman, F., Crowston, K., Koch, H., Krcmar, H., Powell, P., & Swanson, E. B. (2015). Assessing IS research impact. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 36(1), 7.
Ninan, J. (2020). Online naturalistic inquiry in project management research: Directions for research. Project Leadership and Society, 1, 100002.
OCDE. Glossary of Statistical Terms. Available at: <https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3111>. Last access: May, 6th 2020.
O’Leary, T., & Williams, T. (2013). Managing the social trajectory: a practice perspective on project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(3), 566-580.
Orlikowski, W. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 23–33). Cambridge University Press.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2016). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice, 2nd edition, 692 pages.
Pasmore, W. A., Stymne, B. E. N. G. T., Shani, A. B., Mohrman, S. A., & Adler, N. (2008). The promise of collaborative management research. Handbook of collaborative management research, 7-31.
Picciotto, R. (2020). Towards a ‘New Project Management’movement? An international development perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 38(8), 474-485.
Piercy, N. (2011). The role of academics should be to challenge status quo. Financial Times Online. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/ffae61a4-0946-11e1-8e86-00144feabdc0. Last access: May, 15th 2020.
Nenonen, S., Brodie, R. J., Storbacka, K., & Peters, L. D. (2017). Theorizing with managers: how to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance?. European Journal of Marketing, 51(7/8), 1130-1152.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information systems, 24(3), 45-77.
Peirce, C. S. (1905). What pragmatism is. The monist, 15(2), 161-181.
Sarhadi, M., Yousefi, S., & Zamani, A. (2018). Participative project management as a comprehensive response to postmodernism criticisms: The role of communication. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(4), 935-959.
Scales, J. (2020). A design science research approach to closing the gap between the research and practice of project scheduling. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(5), 804-812.
Roll-Hansen, N. (2009). Why the distinction between basic (theoretical) and applied (practical) research is important in the politics of science. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Technical Report.
Rosa, D. V., Chaves, M. S., Oliveira, M., & Pedron, C. (2016). Target: A Collaborative Model based on Social Media to Support the Management of Lessons Learned in Projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(3), 654-681.
Rousseau, D. (2006). Is there such a thing as “Evidence-Based Management”?. Academy of Management Review. 31(2), 256–269.
Rynes, S. L. (2007). Editor’s Afterword. Let’s create a Tipping Point: What Academics and Practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal. 50(5), 1046-1054.
Salovaara, P., Savolainen, J., & Ropo, A. (2020). Project Is as Project Does: Emerging Microactivities and Play Ontology. Project Management Journal, 8756972819894101.
Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(1), 37-56.
Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 249-266.
Simonsen, J. (2009). A Concern for Engaged Scholarship: The challenges for action research projects. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 1.
Soares, R., Chaves, M. S. & Pedron, C. (2020). W4RM - A Prescriptive Framework based on a Wiki to Support Collaborative Risk Management in Information Technology Projects. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 8(1), 67-83.
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative science quarterly, 582-603.
TRL (2014). Technology readiness levels (TRL). Part 19 - Commission Decision C(2014)4995". ec.europa.eu. 2014. Retrieved on March 24th, 2020.
Tushman, M., & O'Reilly III, C. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur's quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 769-774.
Van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 19-36.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802-821.
Wieringa, R., & Moralı, A. (2012, May). Technical action research as a validation method in information systems design science. In International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems (pp. 220-238). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Willcocks, L. & Lacity, M. (2016). Service Automation: Robots and the future of work. London: Brookes.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.
Yip, G. 2011. Business research needs to be more relevant for managers. Financial Times Online. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/f42b4028-35fb-11e0-b67c-00144feabdc0 . Last access: May 18th, 2020.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista de Gestão e Projetos
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
O(s) autor(es) autoriza(m) a publicação do texto na da revista;
O(s) autor(es) garantem que a contribuição é original e inédita e que não está em processo de avaliação em outra(s) revista(s);
A revista não se responsabiliza pelas opiniões, idéias e conceitos emitidos nos textos, por serem de inteira responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es);
É reservado aos editores o direito de proceder a ajustes textuais e de adequação às normas da publicação.
Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons Atribuição - Não comercial - Compartilhar igual 4.0 Internacional que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre) em http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
