2 results
4 - Constructivist paradigms: implications for strategy-as-practice research
- from Part I - Ontological and Epistemological Questions
-
- By Simon Grand, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, Widar von Arx, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Johannes Rüegg-Stürm, University St. Gallen, Switzerland
- Edited by Damon Golsorkhi, Linda Rouleau, David Seidl, Universität Zürich, Eero Vaara
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice
- Published online:
- 05 October 2015
- Print publication:
- 03 September 2015, pp 78-94
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The practice turn in strategy research (Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003; Johnson et al. 2007; Golsorkhi et al. 2010; Vaara and Whittington 2012) implies an explicit reconsideration of paradigmatic premises (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002; Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Vaara and Whittington 2012). The strategy-as-practice research programme challenges concepts of strategy that have long been taken for granted, uncovering the complexities of the ‘social fabric’ of strategy-making (Latour 1996). Furthermore, it undermines the apparently self-evident premises of strategy research and its relation to strategy-making by referring to various constructivist perspectives, theories and methodologies.
Looking at the main contributions to strategy-as-practice research of the last few years, a handful of patterns seem dominant. One can distinguish between three dimensions (Johnson et al. 2007; Orlikowski in this volume). On an empirical level (‘phenomenon’), strategy-making is seen as involving multiple construction processes and activities and multiple actors inside and outside the organization, distributed across multiple organizational layers (Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003; Jarzabkowski and Spee 2009). While strategies and strategy processes are traditionally treated as defined entities, the strategy-as-practice research programme emphasizes their constructedness, and thus their heterogeneity, processuality and fragility. On a theoretical level (‘perspectives’), the study of strategy-making requires approaches that provide conceptual cover for this heterogeneous mesh of processes, activities and actors, as well as the fact of their situatedness and embeddedness. It is argued that a focus on the practice of strategy-making therefore implies a discussion of the underlying action theories (Grand and MacLean 2007; Jarzabkowski 2004; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002) and, specifically, theories of practice (Schatzki, Knorr Cetina and von Savigny 2001). On a philosophical level (‘philosophies’), this emphasis on strategy-making as social practice requires a consideration of scientific research itself from the vantage point of practice (Knorr Cetina 2002; Tsoukas 2005). How do scientific research itself and particular research practices contribute to the construction of the field of strategy, both scientifically and organizationally (Knights and Morgan 1991)?
4 - Constructivist epistemologies in Strategy as Practice research
- Edited by Damon Golsorkhi, Linda Rouleau, David Seidl, Universität Zürich, Eero Vaara
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice
- Published online:
- 05 October 2012
- Print publication:
- 26 August 2010, pp 63-78
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The practice turn in strategy research and the Strategy as Practice research programme (Johnson, Melin and Whittington 2003) imply an interest in explicitly reconsidering the epistemological and theoretical premises of conducting strategy research (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002). Particularly, theories, methodologies and perspectives based on constructivist epistemologies play an important role, either explicitly or implicitly. Looking at main contributions to Strategy as Practice research over the last few years, a few patterns dominate (Johnson et al. 2007): on an empirical level, strategy and strategy making are seen as involving multiple processes and activities, with multiple actors distributed inside and outside the organization over multiple organizational layers. On a theoretical level, the study of strategy making as practice requires perspectives which grasp this heterogeneity of processes, activities and actors, and their situatedness, embeddedness and idiosyncrasy; it is argued that a focus on the practice of strategy making implies a discussion of the underlying action theories (Grand and McLean 2007; Jarzabkowski 2004; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002). On an epistemological level, this emphasis on strategy making as practice requires a reflection of scientific research as practice (Knorr Cetina 2002).
In this chapter, we explore why an interest in strategy practice(s) promotes constructivist epistemologies by discussing important particularities and their relevance for strategy research. To focus our discussion, we ask one main question: How do constructivist epistemologies shape Strategy as Practice research? We explore this question in three steps. First, we introduce influential constructivist epistemologies, exploring their commonalities, idiosyncrasies and differences.