Rethinking dichotomization: A critical perspective on the use of “hard” and “soft” in project management research

• We explore the dichotomy between “hard” and “soft” in project management research.
• We argue that binaries form hierarchies where one is given primacy over the other.
• We show that the dichotomy of “hard” and “soft” is increasingly used in research.
• We show that “hard” and “soft” are often combined in practice.
• We conclude that researchers reinforce hegemony and separate research from practice.

This paper elaborates on the categorization – dichotomization – between “hard” and “soft” in project management research. This categorization is becoming more increasingly used in project management research for example by stating that some projects are “hard”, while other projects are “soft”, that some project skills are “hard”, while other project skills are “soft” etc. The aim is to discuss this dichotomization as an example of hierarchization – a power struggle between opposites – within project management research and literature and acknowledge the effects for project management research and practice of unreflective upholding of this dichotomy. We provide a critical review and discussion of stage-gate models as an example of “hard” project management approaches, and agile methods as an example of “soft” approaches to project management and acknowledge that in project management practice, it seems as if “hard” and “soft” approaches are most often combined. Hence, this dichotomy seems to be upheld by the research community while practitioners show a more holistic perspective to project management.