A discourse on the non-method

In spite of the activism of professional bodies and researchers, empirical evidence shows that project management still does not deliver the expected benefits and promises. Hence, many have questioned the validity of the hegemonic rationalist paradigm anchored in the Enlightenment and Natural Sciences tradition supporting project management research and practice for the last 60 years and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management. In order to address these limitations many authors, taking a post-modernist stance in social sciences, build on ‘pre-modern’ philosophies such as the Aristotelian one, specially emphasizing the role of praxis (activity), and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Indeed, ‘Praxis … is the central category of the philosophy which is not merely an interpretation of the world, but is also a guide to its transformation …’ (Vazquez, 1977:. 149). Therefore, praxis offers an important focus for practitioners and researchers in social sciences, one in which theory is integrated with practice at the point of intervention. Simply stated, praxis can serve as a common ground for those interested in basic and applied research by providing knowledge of the reality in which action, informed by theory, takes place. Consequently, I suggest a ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning (praxeology being defined as study or science of human actions and conduct, including praxis, practices and phronesis) and to go beyond the ‘Theory-Practice’ divide. Moreover, I argue that we need to move away from the current dichotomy between the two classes ‘scholars experts-researchers’ and ‘managers/workers-practitioners-participants’. Considering one single class of ‘PraXitioner’, becoming a phronimos, may contribute to create new perspectives and open up new ways of thinking and acting in project situations. Thus, I call for a Perestroika in researching and acting in project management situations. My intent is to suggest a balanced praxeological view of the apparent opposition between social and natural science approaches. I explore, in this chapter, three key questions, covering the ontological, epistemological and praxeological dimensions of project management in action. 1. Are the research approaches being currently used appropriate for generating contributions that matter to both theory and practice with regards to what a ‘project’ is or to what we do when we call a specific situation ‘a project’? 2. On the basis of which intellectual virtues is the knowledge generated and what is the impact for theory and practice? 3. Are the modes of action of the practitioners ‘prudent’ and are they differentiating or reconciling formal and abstract rationality from substantive rationality and situated reasoning with regards to the mode of action they adopt in particular project situations? The investigation of the above questions leads me to debate about ‘Project Management-as-Praxis’, and to suggest ‘A’ (not ‘THE’) ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning and mode of inquiry – acknowledging a non-paradigmatic, subjective and kaleidoscopic perspective – for ‘Knowing-as-Practicing’ in project management. In short, this is about making a ‘Projects Science’ that matters.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Acting and knowing in temporary and project-based organizing : turning from the practice world to a liberation praxeology?

The purpose of this article is to offer a critical discussion about the “practice” lens and its weaknesses in addressing acting and knowledge & competence development in the context of temporary and project-based organizing. I demonstrate that “practice turn” and “phronetic proposal” are dual and opposite perspectives within the “practice” world, none of them being fully relevant to grasp project organizing and that each of them maintain the opposition between the “observer” and the “natives “of the practices. I suggest an alternate style of reasoning in order to address the dissatisfaction in face of problems, antinomies, perplexities and contradictions generated by the dichotomous thinking: a liberation praxeology rooted in Aristotle philosophy aiming, through praxis & phronesis and practical acquired experience & perfecting actualization, at reconciling facts & values and means & ends, and Ethics & Politics in the quest for human happiness and social good through project organizing.

Female students’ interactions in a middle school engineering project : a case study

Targeting females at high school or earlier may be a key towards engaging them in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. This ethnographic study, part of a three-year longitudinal research project, investigated Year 8 female students’ learning about engineering concepts associated with designing, constructing, testing, and evaluating a catapult. There was a series of lead-up lessons and four lessons for the catapult challenge (total of 18 x 45-minute lessons) over a nine-week period. Data from two girls within a focus group showed that they needed to: (1) receive clarification on engineering terms to facilitate more fluent discourse, (2) question and debate conceptual understandings without peers being judgemental, and (3) have multiple opportunities for engaging with materials towards designing, constructing and explaining key concepts learnt. There are implications for teachers facilitating STEM education, such as: clarifying STEM terms, articulating how students can interact in non-judgmental ways, and providing multiple opportunities for interacting within engineering education.

Why trust the Head? : key strategies for transformational school leaders for building a purposeful relationship of trust

Trust is widely recognised as one of the key qualities that a successful leader needs to bring about change within their organization. Browning’s study aimed to identify practices which a school leader can effectively use to inspire, build, and maintain trust between themselves, their staff and Chair of governing body. The study was undertaken in two phases. Phase One was the identification of four highly trusted transformational leaders from the Australian independent schooling sector. Phase Two was a multicase study of the four school leaders. The findings provide practical advice for school leaders wishing to have a positive impact on the outcomes of the students in their school.

Supporting transition to law school and student well-being : the role of professional legal identity

The empirically established decline in law student well being during the first year of law school is a red-flagged imprimatur for first year curriculum change. This article suggests that by engaging law students with the concept of a positive professional identity, student engagement and intrinsic motivation will increase because they are working towards a career goal that has meaning and purpose. Law school is a time of professional transformation and the legal academy can take steps to ensure that this transformation is inculcated with positive messages. Literature from the fields of law and psychology is analysed in this article, to explain how a positive conception of the legal profession (and a student’s future role within it) can increase a student’s psychological well-being – at law school and beyond.

Transition to law school and law student well-being : The importance of professional legal identity

The empirically established decline in law student well-being during the first year of law school is a red-flagged imprimatur for first year curriculum change. This article suggests that by engaging law students with the concept of a positive professional identity, student engagement and intrinsic motivation will increase because they are working towards a career goal that has meaning and purpose. Law school is a time of professional transformation and the legal academy can take steps to ensure that this transformation is inculcated with positive messages. Literature from the fields of law and psychology is analysed in this article, to explain how a positive conception of the legal profession (and a student’s future role within it) can increase a student’s psychological well-being – at law school and beyond.

Partnerships to promote school to work transitions : evidence from the field

Internationally, vocational education and training (VET) is challenged by increasing skills shortages in certain industries and rapidly changing skill requirements. Rigid and centralised state bureaucracies have proven inadequate to adapt to these challenges. Increasingly, partnerships between schools and industry have been established as a potential strategy to address local labour market demand and to provide school to work transition programs. Drawing on experiences in Australia, this paper reports on a case study of government-let partnerships between schools and industry. The Queensland Gateway schools initiative currently involves over 120 schools. The study aimed to understand how partnerships were constructed in this initiative. Selected partnerships were analysed in terms of the following principles of public-private partnerships – efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, and beneficiaries. Although there are some benefits of partnership activities reported by both school and industry stakeholders, little evidence was found that the above underlying principles had been addressed to a significant extent in the Gateway school initiative. Further, these partnerships are often tenuously facilitated by individuals who have limited infrastructure or strategic support. Implications are that project stakeholders have not sufficiently accommodated theoretical perspectives on implementation and management of partnerships. Similar initiatives may be improved if stakeholders are cognisant of the underlying principles supporting successful public-private partnerships.

Promoting handwashing with soap behaviour in Kenyan schools : learning from puppetry trials among primary school children in Kenya

While previous research clearly shows that handwashing with soap can prevent many serious illnesses and deaths among children in developing countries, handwashing rates remain low in countries like Kenya. This PhD study explored conditions needed for a successful handwashing with soap initiatives in primary schools in Kenya. It explored the use of puppetry as an approach in communicating hygiene messages as a form of interactive, community-driven method. The research considered a range of conditions that affect such interventions including infrastructure; hardware and software; policy that influence health programs; different actors who have a role to play; and factors affecting sustainability.

Time and space in biogeography : response to Parenti & Ebach (2013)

A recent Guest Editorial by Parenti & Ebach (2013, Journal of Biogeography, 40, 813–820) disagrees with the methods or interpretations in two of our recent papers. In addition, the authors open a debate on biogeographical concepts, and present an alternative philosophy for biogeographical research in the context of their recently described biogeographical subregion called ‘Pandora’. We disagree with their approach and conclusions, and comment on several issues related to our differing conceptual approaches for biogeographical research; namely, our use of molecular phylogenetic analyses, including time estimates; and Parenti & Ebach's reliance on taxon/general area cladograms. Finally, we re-examine their ‘tests’ supporting the existence of ‘Pandora’.

Phenomenography in the Centre for Information Technology Innovation (CITI)

Phenomenography has its roots in educational research (Marton and Booth, 1997), but has since been adopted in other domains including business (Sandberg, 1994), health (Barnard, McCosker and Gerber, 1999), information science (Bruce, 1999a,b) and information technology (Bruce and Pham, 2001) as well as information systems. Emerging phenomenographic research in areas other than education, has been interdisciplinary, often bringing together technology, education and a host discipline such as health or business. In Australia, phenomenography has been used in information technology (IT) related research primarily in Victoria and Queensland. These studies have pursued the latter two of three established lines of phenomenographic research: 1) the study of conceptions of learning; 2) the study of conceptions in specific disciplines of study and 3) the study of how people conceive of various aspects of their everyday world that have not, for them, been the object of formal studies (Marton 1988, p.189). Information Technology researchers have predominantly pursued the latter two lines of research.

'I want to educate school age children' : producing early childhood teacher professional identities

The Australian Government’s current workforce reforms in early childhood education and care (ECEC) include a major shift in qualification requirements. The new requirement is that university four-year degree-qualified teachers are employed in before-school contexts, including child care. Ironically, recent research studies show that, in Australia, the very preservice teachers who are enrolled in these degree programs have a reluctance to work in childcare. This article reports on part of a larger study which is inquiring into how early childhood teacher professional identities are discursively produced, and provides a partial mapping of the literature. One preservice teacher’s comment provides the starting point, and the paper locates some the discourses that are accessible to preservice teachers as they prepare for the early years workforce. An awareness of the discursive field provides a sound background for preparing early childhood teachers. A challenge for the field is to consider which discourses are dominant, and how they potentially work to privilege work in some ECEC contexts over others.