A thoroughly conducted scientific or scholarly research finds answers to hypotheses or propositions and produces outcomes that have direct and indirect impact on individuals, institutions, communities, and the world at large. The results may stand the test of time if the research is conducted on sound and transparent, reliable, and verifiable protocols. In order to pass the validity and reliability test, a researcher must learn to think critically and avoid the pitfalls in human reasoning; human capacity to reason is quintessential to scientific research and when that capacity is blurred and overwhelmed by biases, conflict of interests, conflict of conscience, emotions, illogical thoughts, the outcomes of a research can be vulnerable and susceptible to egregious errors; it impairs a researcher’s ability to think and logically solve problems.
Thus, instead of logically analyzing and making decision either inductively or deductively, the researcher is engrossed in pitfalls of human reasoning such as taking correlation for causation, making generalizations about members of a category after having encountered only restricted subset of that category, looking only for evidence that supports a hypothesis without also looking for evidence that would disconfirm such hypothesis and confusing what must logically be true with what seems to be true in the world.
The project management fields of study is fraught with misconstrued and misinformed notions. Some practitioners, scholars, and writers, to name a few examples, equate project management to a unique conceptualization or contextualization. This belief is rampant and widely held among IT project management enthusiasts. For them, what occurs in the IT industry reflects on the project management industry and that project management success and failure are largely measured by the failure and success of information technology projects. There also those whose who focus on methodology as the quintessential solution or panacea to the perennial failure of project management practitioners to deliver projects, particularly complex size projects, without inaccurate project cost estimate, schedule delays, budgetary constraints, environmental disasters, and resistance.
This misinformation or misconstruction is also exacerbated by the fragmentation and superficial conduct of qualitative and quantitative research enquiries regarding project management activities.
The Project Management University Research Institute intends to fill the knowledge gap between misinformation and fragmented research results with those that meet internal and external validity outcomes by applying the hybrid of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. Internal validity is measured in terms of design and data accuracy and how causal, linear, and correlational relationships can be drawn from such data. External validity is measured in terms of its generalizability and repeatability. In other words, other researchers across disciplines will be able to replicate PMSURI researched results or discoveries.