The role of information and communication technologies in using projective techniques as survey tools to meet the challenges of bounded rationality

Purpose – Normal “mixed method” approaches to research – using standard quantitative surveys supported by qualitative methods such as semi‐structured interviews, often fail to measure issues “outside of the fence”. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether the challenges of bounded rationality can, in part, be addressed by including projective techniques within the “mixed methods” approach. In particular, it discusses the role of information and communication technologies (ICT) in such an approach. Design/methodology/approach – The results of an international pilot study into the use of projective techniques in assisting the evaluation of policies is outlined. The study is concerned with the response of small businesses to governments' policies aimed at encouraging the adoption of ICT. This is used as the basis of a discussion of the appropriateness of using ICT in such an approach. Findings – ICT could play an important role in the use of projective techniques – including design; improving reliability and validity; distribution; analysis and interpretation. Research limitations/implications – Much more research is needed before the appropriateness of (ICT based) projective techniques can be assessed fully. Practical implications – The lessons learnt from this pilot study about the use of projective techniques as part of a “mixed methods” survey methodology was explored. In particular, the paper provides some practical suggestions as to how ICT might be used to reduce the overheads involved in implementing projective techniques. Originality/value – For many people involved in traditional quantitative and qualitative research the usefulness and appropriateness of projective techniques have yet to be proven. This paper contributes some new thinking about how ICT might address some of the concerns over the suitability of projective techniques as part of a mixed methodology.