Igniting fire: Kahneman as a source of creative tension in project studies

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Joana Geraldi
{"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.
点燃火焰:Kahneman作为项目研究中创造性张力的来源
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
26.20%
发文量
83
审稿时长
59 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信