2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Project accountability: An exploratory case study using actor–network theory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…for our research phenomenon and offers a fixed context in which new research can be established (Edmondson and McManus 2007). Since ANT can suggest formal hypotheses but not enough to do them with numbers alone, as well as drawing on earlier work from different literature bodies (e.g., Sage et al 2011;Lee et al 2015;Shim and Shin 2016;Burga and Rezania 2017;Sage et al 2019), we follow Edmondson and McManus (2007) and classify ANT as an intermediate theory. Therefore, we use the proposed methodological framework of intermedia theory, for example, research questions investigating relationships between new and established constructs or integrate qualitative and quantitative data aiming to shed light on mechanisms between SCM executives and digital technologies (Edmondson and McManus 2007).…”
Section: Theoretical Lensesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…for our research phenomenon and offers a fixed context in which new research can be established (Edmondson and McManus 2007). Since ANT can suggest formal hypotheses but not enough to do them with numbers alone, as well as drawing on earlier work from different literature bodies (e.g., Sage et al 2011;Lee et al 2015;Shim and Shin 2016;Burga and Rezania 2017;Sage et al 2019), we follow Edmondson and McManus (2007) and classify ANT as an intermediate theory. Therefore, we use the proposed methodological framework of intermedia theory, for example, research questions investigating relationships between new and established constructs or integrate qualitative and quantitative data aiming to shed light on mechanisms between SCM executives and digital technologies (Edmondson and McManus 2007).…”
Section: Theoretical Lensesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Case study is understood as a case of social phenomena using research question 'How' [33,34]. According to Yin in Burga and Rezania [35] case study does not require propositions specifically. But it needs broad directions to guide a research [36] in information-oriented sampling.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve this, an online search into different databases such as ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar was carried out, using different combinations and synonyms for stakeholder evolution, stakeholder dynamics, stakeholder management, course of a project, project lifecycle, etc. Papers were selected from prestigious journals (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010;Aaltonen et al, 2015;Achterkamp & Vos, 2008;Burga & Rezania, 2017;Davis, 2014;De Schepper et al, 2014;Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014;Floricel, Bonneau, Aubry, & Sergi, 2014;Jepsen, 2013;Khang & Moe, 2008;Mitchell et al, 1997;Olander & Landin, 2005;Papadopoulos & Merali, 2008;Windsor, 2010).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In their research, Aaltonen and Kujala (2010) used Mitchell et al (1997)'s stakeholder salience model as reference for their analysis. Floricel et al (2014) and Burga and Rezania (2017) have discussed stakeholder dynamics on the basis of actor-network-theory (ANT), a theory integrating interests and power in the ongoing processes of negotiation and translation through an evolving assemblage of affinities between actors rather than via predetermined positions and individual interests.Based on these examples, we can see that the research on stakeholder dynamics has so far been primarily contextual and subject to the focus of the scholars carrying out the research. We can also see that the use of tools initially intended for the static analysis and management of stakeholders has been addressed before.…”
Section: Stakeholder Dynamicsmentioning
confidence: 99%