{"title":"Igniting fire: Kahneman as a source of creative tension in project studies","authors":"Joana Geraldi","doi":"10.1016/j.ijproman.2025.102736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This essay explores how Kahneman contributed to debates in project studies. I revisit three debates: Flyvbjerg vs. Hirschman on (over-)optimism, Kahneman vs. Klein on the trustworthiness of intuitive expertise, and Kahneman vs. Gigerenzer on nudging vs. boosting. These discussions illuminate four attributes of insightful debates: addressing practical challenges, confronting epistemological boundaries, building on rigorous research, and owning its ethical standpoint. Ultimately, Kahneman’s legacy inspires scholars in project studies to critically engage, challenge assumptions, and embrace debates as spaces of ethical and reflexive academic practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48429,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Project Management","volume":"43 5","pages":"Article 102736"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Project Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786325000626","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This essay explores how Kahneman contributed to debates in project studies. I revisit three debates: Flyvbjerg vs. Hirschman on (over-)optimism, Kahneman vs. Klein on the trustworthiness of intuitive expertise, and Kahneman vs. Gigerenzer on nudging vs. boosting. These discussions illuminate four attributes of insightful debates: addressing practical challenges, confronting epistemological boundaries, building on rigorous research, and owning its ethical standpoint. Ultimately, Kahneman’s legacy inspires scholars in project studies to critically engage, challenge assumptions, and embrace debates as spaces of ethical and reflexive academic practice.
这篇文章探讨了卡尼曼如何为项目研究中的辩论做出贡献。我回顾了三场辩论:Flyvbjerg vs. Hirschman关于(过度)乐观主义,Kahneman vs. Klein关于直觉专业知识的可信度,Kahneman vs. Gigerenzer关于推动vs.推动。这些讨论阐明了有洞察力的辩论的四个属性:解决实际挑战,面对认识论边界,建立在严谨的研究基础上,并拥有其伦理立场。最终,卡尼曼的遗产激励项目研究的学者批判性地参与,挑战假设,并将辩论作为道德和反思性学术实践的空间。
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Project Management is recognized as a premier publication in the field of project management and organization studies. Our main objective is to contribute to the advancement of project management and project organizing through the publication of groundbreaking research.
We are dedicated to presenting fresh insights and new knowledge in various domains, including project management, program management, portfolio management, project-oriented organizations, project networks, and project-oriented societies. We actively encourage submissions that explore project management and organizing from the perspectives of organizational behavior, strategy, supply chain management, technology, change management, innovation, and sustainability.
By publishing high-quality research articles and reviews, we strive to revolutionize the academic landscape and propel the field of project management forward. We invite researchers, scholars, and practitioners to contribute to our journal and be a part of the progressive development in this exciting field.