From:
Beatrice Hedelin (beatrice.hedelin@kau.se)
What perspectives are useful for understanding (analyzing/assessing/discussing) PM? Can the absence of basis for analysis be useful? Is there a such thing – the absence of perspective? How is it useful to explicitly report the underpinning perspective of a PM study? Is there a PM perspective that is “true”/”generic”? Perhaps perspectives can be more or less generic? Widely approved?, dominant? Objective?
Should we as academics strive to define a ”true” basis for PM analysis/assessment or would it be important to start comparing different ones? E.g. what would the consequences be of implementing a certain way of understanding PM in practice? – In terms distribution of resources, for democracy, for coordination between geographical scales… etc.
A PM study perspective can be characterized as theoretical, PM practitionner’s, or PM participant’s (and there is not one homogenous participant group, and one theoretical perspective…). How can the underpinning perspective of a PM study be described, other than theoretical/practical?
Nagesh Kolagani 5 years, 1 month ago.