A Qualitative Method Proposal for the Study of Strategy as Practice

Leonardo Lemos Da Silveira Santos,César Tureta,Bruno Felix

doi:10.1590/1982-7849rac2021190353.en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose: recently, the strategy as practice approach has sought to overcome the micro/macro dichotomy existing in its literature, as well as to better integrate the dimensions of praxis, practice and practitioner. To fill this gap, the aim of the paper is to discuss potential methods to guide empirical studies of strategy as practice (SAP). Method: the paper proposes a method based on an extensive literature review. Phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and narratives are discussed, and their components are presented in the context of strategy as practice studies. Results: the presented method articulates four approaches. Phenomenology is used to enhance the understanding of strategist experiences. Grounded theory is considered a method to develop theories about the studied phenomenon. Ethnography is used to contextualize the daily practices of strategists. Narratives are the path to access the stories of the strategists. Conclusion: the proposed method may be useful to overcome micro/macro dichotomy existing in strategy as practice literature and to integrate praxis, practice and practitioner dimensions.

Highlights

We propose a framework that brings together: Heiddeger’s interpretative phenomenology (Chia & Holt, 2006; Gill, 2014; Küpers, 2009; Tsoukas, 2010), ethnography (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & Lofland, 2001; Cunliffe, 2010, 2015; Rasche & Chia, 2009), narrative of practice (De La Ville & Mounoud, 2010; Fenton & Langley, 2011; Laslett, 1999; Rouleau, 2010), and grounded theory (Bryant, 2017; Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Corley, 2015; Goulding, 2002; Hendry et al, 2010; Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
We argue that the method design discussed in this paper is long-range because it allows apprehending different levels of analysis and to deal with praxis-practices-practitioners dimensions that are central to strategy as practice (SAP) studies
The method presented in this paper offers two main implications for the literature on strategizing

Summary

Introduction

In the last two decades, strategy as practice (SAP) has emerged as a distinctive approach in strategic management (Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2010; Jarzabkowski, 2005; Jarzabkowski, Balogun, & Seidl, 2007; Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009; Johnson, Langley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007; Johnson, Melin, & Whittington, 2003; Vaara & Whittington, 2012; Whittington, 1996). The key insight of SAP studies has been the idea that strategy work relies on organizational and other practices that affect both the process and the outcome of strategies (Jarzabkowski et al, 2007; Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009; Johnson et al, 2003; Vaara & Whittington, 2012) This conceptual reorientation offers the possibility of a deeper level of explanation regarding the nature of strategic activities “because it focuses research attention on the situated social practices that are enacted and re-enacted in the doing of strategy” From the theoretical point of view, different articulations have already been built between SAP perspective and theories of practice (Golsorkhi et al, 2010; Seidl & Whittington, 2014): Jarzabkowski (2005) explored activity theory; Whittington (2010) discussed structuration theory; Denis, Langley, and Rouleau (2007) pointed the potential contributions from actor-network theory, theories of social practice, and convention theory; Suddaby, Seidl and Lê (2013) unveiled different ways in which neo-institutionalism and SAP could complement each other

Objectives

Discussion

Conclusion