Projective techniques: Are they a victim of clashing paradigms?
AbstractThis paper reviews the concept and historical development of projective techniques. It considers why, given the importance of their psychoanalytical foundations to the underlying paradigms of management theory, they have been generally marginalised as a mainstream business and management research tool. Projective techniques are defined and their historical origins delineated. This is followed by an overview of projective ‘types’. Some of the general advantages and current issues associated with employing projective techniques are also presented. Thereafter a discussion of the reasons projective techniques have not been widely adopted by positivist academic management researchers is made. We put forward the central argument that since many of the challenges facing management research are due to the restrictions introduced by bounded rationality, projective techniques offer a possible alternative to traditional mixed methods.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 33331.
Date of creation: 12 Sep 2011
Date of revision:
Projective Techniques; Management Research;
Other versions of this item:
- Mr Clive Boddy & Mr Derek Bond & Dr Elaine Ramsey, . "Projective Techniques Are they a Victom of Clashing Paradigms," Business Retail and Financial Services Working Papers 1, Ulster Business School.
- M00 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - General - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-09-22 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Elaine Ramsey & Derek Bond, 2007.
"Evaluating Public Policy Formation and Support Mechanisms for Technological Innovation,"
International Review of Applied Economics,
Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 403-418.
- Ramsey, Elaine & Bond, Derek, 2006. "Evaluating Public Policy Formation and Support Mechanisms for Technological Innovation," MPRA Paper 253, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Richard M. Cyert & Herbert A. Simon & Donald B. Trow, 1956. "Observation of a Business Decision," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29, pages 237.
- Clive Boddy, 2011. "The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 255-259, August.
- Fisher, Robert J, 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-15, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.