Investigating collaboration in project management research: using action research as a meta-methodology

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to investigate collaboration in project management research. Although the literature shows an increase in collaboration between scientists and social scientists for various reasons, it is unclear how and why such collaboration takes place in project management research. The literature does show that co-authorship of articles published in project management journals is on the rise due to increased collaboration between researchers in developed countries and emerging economies as well as developing countries. However, no detailed study has been conducted to investigate how such collaboration occurs in practice in project management research. This article addresses this gap.Design/methodology/approachWe use a multi-method approach (action research as a meta-methodology and surveys) using qualitative data to reflect on a successful collaborative externally funded research project. At the end of the study, a survey was used to investigate how collaboration occurred among the 26 researchers involved, who were spread over nine countries to collect data on a sponsored research project led by the authors who were the principal investigators. We also compare our findings from the original project with findings from a second survey of a purposeful sample of ten project management researchers who have conducted or are conducting collaborative research in order to validate our findings.FindingsThrough this study, we were able to compare the reasons for increased collaboration in scientific research reported in the literature with what we learnt from our own experience in collaborating on a large-scale project across geographical boundaries and cultures around the world. We were also able to get some insights on enablers and barriers to collaboration from peers who have collaborated on project management research from the second survey. We found that, although some of the reasons explained in the literature were confirmed in our study (e.g. the reputation of lead researchers), some other reasons (e.g. the prestige of institutions) were not that important. The conclusions section of this article provides a more detailed comparison. We also found that using a project management approach would deliver better outcomes. The literature on scientific collaboration was divided on the value of a project management approach and preferred a combination of firmness and flexibility. We found that using action research as a meta-methodology to reflect on our research gave us further insights into why we did what we did at certain critical points in our research that moved us forward.Research limitations/implicationsOur study used two surveys with a limited number of researchers to compare what was found in the literature on reasons for collaboration in scientific research and how research outcomes were measured using citation rates. Conducting interviews or focused groups could have provided more nuanced findings. However, our findings did show that collaboration is beneficial to both experienced and early career researchers and helps them to publish in higher-ranked journals resulting in better visibility for the research. This is an interesting observation and merits further investigation. Theoretical implications: Findings from this research contribute to the broad literature on collaborative research in science and social science with a focus on practice-based fields such as project management where collaboration between academics and practitioners is becoming important.Practical implicationsThe study provides some insights into the reasons for processes used and benefits from collaboration in project management research. Our findings have also been validated with our peers. Thus, this study will be useful for setting up and managing collaborative research in project management.Social implicationsEffective collaboration in research can provide social value through mentoring of early career researchers.Originality/valueThis is the first detailed study of collaborative research in project management. It also proposes an action research model that can be used to retrospectively analyse long-term research projects to reflect upon and improve.

An Evaluation Framework for the Dual Contribution of Action Research: Opportunities and Challenges in the Field of Operations Management

“…Operations management is the field of management in which AR is mostly used (Erro-Garcés & Alfaro-Tanco, 2020). But as there are studies that highlight the relevance of AR in other fields of management, such as marketing (Kates & Robertson, 2004), human resources (Githens, 2015), information systems (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996) or project management (Sankaran et al, 2021), some of the findings of this study can hopefully be valuable for other fields of management. More specifically, the evaluation framework developed represents a tool that may help to assess the dual contribution of any research study based on AR and not only in the field of OM.…”

“…On the one hand, Erro-Garcés and Alfaro-Tanco (2020, p. 8) concluded that "AR is a multidisciplinary approach that involves the use of various qualitative and quantitative methodologies/ instruments and, consequently, enables the implementation of other quantitative and qualitative methodologies." On the other hand, Sankaran et al (2021) used action research as a metamethodology through the mix of case studies and surveys in order to investigate collaboration in project management research. Meredith et al (1989) defined AR as an ongoing cycle of research stages.…”

Passionate projects: practitioner reflections on emotion management

“…Like other research in the field that also draws on participant experiences, in reporting our results, we take the view that qualitative research, especially in-depth semi-structured interviews, needs to maintain participant voice (see Lindebaum and Fielden, 2011; McGrath and Whitty, 2020; Sankaran et al. , 2021; Pugh, 2021).…”

Model of Substantiation of Organizational Structure of the Management System of Higher Education

“…Scientists have found that doctoral students are not sufficiently aware of the proper use of project management methodologies, as a result of which there is a need to update the organizational framework. Scientists from Australia, Norway and Canada, namely S. Sankaran, R. Muller and N. Drouin, focused on the analysis of collaboration in project management research [3]. In particular, the authors draw attention to international cooperation between developed countries and developing countries, in the context of which the issue of research management is raised.…”

“…Scientists also conducted an empirical study that provided for determining the prerequisites for international scientific and project cooperation, among which the reputation of leading researchers, the prestige of institutions, etc. were identified [3]. Especially important for scientific intelligence are the achievements of K. Piwowar-Sulej [4].…”