Theory Use in Project Management Research: An Exploratory Content Analysis Approach

Erastus Karanja, Jigish Zaveri, Angela K. Miles and Steven Day

Evaluation Review, 2025, vol. 49, issue 3, 511-563

Abstract: The frequency and richness of the theories developed, tested, and used by researchers in an academic discipline exemplify several pertinent factors, namely, the growth, the maturity, the independence, the legitimacy, and the influence of the discipline. Although organizations have been working on projects for centuries, Project Management (PM) is a considerably new academic discipline with emerging research themes, models, methodologies, frameworks, and paradigms. These PM concepts are anchored on or reinforced by new or existing theories. This exploratory study aims to add to the existing PM body of knowledge by investigating the prevalence of theory use in PM research. A systematic content analysis of 9200 PM research articles published from 2000 to 2019 (20Â years) in the leading PM journals identified 248 unique theories. These results reveal that the PM discipline is increasingly embracing the use of theories with game theory, fuzzy theory, agency theory, contingency theory, and stakeholder theory emerging as the most dominant theories in the reviewed research articles. Also, although PM is developing its theories, the results revealed that PM researchers continue to heavily use theories borrowed from other academic disciplines such as psychology, sociology, mathematics, and economics.

Keywords: theory; project management; content analysis; literature review; theoretical orientation; exploratory research (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X241279706 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:49:y:2025:i:3:p:511-563

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X241279706

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().