Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue: Strategy Science’s Contributions to Doctoral Reading Lists

Abstract

Free AccessAboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Go to SectionFree Access HomeStrategy ScienceVol. 8, No. 1 Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue: Strategy Science’s Contributions to Doctoral Reading ListsDaniel A. Levinthal , Gwendolyn K. Lee Daniel A. Levinthal , Gwendolyn K. Lee Published Online:10 Mar 2023https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0181As the editorial statement for Strategy Science states, “Strategy Science seeks to publish outstanding research directed to the challenges of strategic management in both business and non-business organizations… The critical issue with respect to publication is whether the work enhances, in some meaningful manner, our understanding of some substantive issues in the strategy domain.” The journal is proud of the degree to which that aim has been realized and the published work is beginning to influence the “conversation” in the strategy field. Arguably, there is no more important forum for these conversations than the doctoral seminar room. To help you keep your own seminar discussions fresh, we would like to provide some of the key contributions that have appeared in the journal to date. The reading list is generated from a hybrid process that combines editorial curation and user adoption.Per the idea of a syllabus “refresh,” we have organized these papers under six broad topic areas: strategic decision making, industry dynamics, technology strategy, corporate strategy, non-market strategies, and empirical methods. One of the strengths of the Journal is the dual properties of, on the one hand a focus on core issues in the strategy domain, and on the other hand a wide range of approaches per the Journal’s methodological and theoretical eclecticism. As a result, we were readily able to aggregate some of the journal’s core contributions under these fundamental areas of strategy research while offering a diverse set of theoretical approaches and methods. Enjoy the suggested readings.We invite the readers of Strategy Science to bring to our attention the Journal’s publications that are adopted in their doctoral seminar syllabi. Many of the publications in our list of suggested readings have already been adopted, according to a survey that the editorial board conducted in spring 2022. User adoption and feedback will help us update the suggested readings continuously after this virtual special issue is published. For continuous updates, please visit https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/stsc/Strategy-Science-Contributions-to-Doctoral-Reading-Lists, a digital forum created by Strategy Science for journal content included in doctoral reading lists.Strategic Decision MakingCattani G, Sands D, Porac J, Greenberg J (2018) Competitive sensemaking in value creation and capture. Strategy Sci. 3(4):632–657. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0069.Csaszar FA, Laureiro-Martínez D (2018) Individual and organizational antecedents of strategic foresight: A representational approach. Strategy Sci. 3(3):513–532. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0063.Felin T, Zenger TR (2017) The theory-based view: Economic actors as theorists. Strategy Sci. 2(4):258–271. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2017.0048.Gavetti G, Menon A (2016) Evolution cum agency: Toward a model of strategic foresight. Strategy Sci. 1(3):207–233. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2016.0018.1Leiblein MJ, Reuer JJ, Zenger T (2018) What makes a decision strategic? Strategy Sci. 3(4):558–573. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0074.Industry DynamicsAdner R, Ruiz-Aliseda F, Zemsky P (2016) Specialist versus generalist positioning: Demand heterogeneity, technology scalability and endogenous market segmentation. Strategy Sci. 1(3):184–206. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2016.0016.Cabral L (2016) Living up to expectations: Corporate reputation and persistence of firm performance. Strategy Sci. 1(1):2–11. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2015.0002.Cattani, G, Sands D, Porac J, Greenberg J (2018) Competitive sensemaking in value creation and capture. Strategy Sci. 3(4):632–657. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2018.0069.Chu JSG (2018) A theory of durable dominance. Strategy Sci. 3(3):498–512. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0055.Gavetti G, Helfat CE, Marengo L (2017) Searching, shaping, and the quest for superior performance. Strategy Sci. 2(3):194–209. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2017.0036.Helfat CE (2021) What does firm shaping of markets really mean? Strategy Sci. 6(4):360–370. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2021.0144.Knudsen T, Levinthal DA, Winter SG (2017) Systematic differences and random rates: Reconciling Gibrat’s law with firm differences. Strategy Sci. 2(2):111–120. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2017.0031.Pontikes EG (2018) Category strategy for firm advantage. Strategy Sci. 3(4):620–631. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2018.0070.Technology StrategyAdner R, Lieberman M (2021) Disruption through complements. Strategy Sci. 6(1):91–109. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2021.0125.Adner R, Puranam P, Zhu F (2019) What is different about digital strategy? From quantitative to qualitative change. Strategy Sci. 4(4):253–261. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2019.0099.Barach MA, Kaul A, Leung MD, Lu S (2019) Strategic redundancy in the use of big data: Evidence from a two-sided labor market. Strategy Sci. 4(4):298–322. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2019.0093.Benner MJ, Waldfogel J (2016) The song remains the same? Technological change and positioning in the recorded music industry. Strategy Sci. 1(3):129–147. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2016.0012.2Gambardella A, Heaton S, Novelli E, Teece DJ (2021) Profiting from enabling technologies? Strategy Sci. 6(1):75–90. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2020.0119.Lee GK, Alnahedh MA (2016) Industries’ potential for interdependency and profitability: A panel of 135 industries, 1988–1996. Strategy Sci. 1(4):285–308. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2016.0023.Lee S, Csaszar FA (2020) Cognitive and structural antecedents of innovation: A large-sample study. Strategy Sci. 5(2):71–97. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2020.0107.Pontikes EG, Barnett WP (2017) The coevolution of organizational knowledge and market technology. Strategy Sci. 2(1):64–82. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2017.0026.Rathje, JM, Katila R (2021) Enabling technologies and the role of private firms: A machine learning matching analysis. Strategy Sci. 6(1):5–21. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2020.0112.Corporate StrategyAdner R, Zemsky P (2016) Diversification and performance: Linking relatedness, market structure, and the decision to diversify. Strategy Sci. 1(1):32–55. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2015.0006.Benner MJ, Zenger T (2016) The lemons problem in markets for strategy. Strategy Sci. 1(2):71–89. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2015.0010.Bennett VM, Feldman ER (2017) Make room! Make room! A note on sequential spinoffs and acquisitions. Strategy Sci. 2(2):100–110. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2017.0030.Chatman JA, Srivastava SB (2021) A psychologist and sociologist join strategists for breakfast: Building a framework to understand culture and its relationship to strategy. Strategy Sci. 6(2):119–123. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2021.0139.Feldman ER (2016) Corporate spin-offs and capital allocation decisions. Strategy Sci. 1(4):256–271. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2016.0022.Gibbons R, LiCalzi M, Warglien M (2021) What situation is this? Shared frames and collective performance. Strategy Sci. 6(2):124–140. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2020.0120.Guler I (2018) Pulling the plug: The capability to terminate unsuccessful projects and firm performance. Strategy Sci. 3(3):481–497. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2017.0053.Kreutzer M, Cardinal LB, Walter J, Lechner C (2016) Formal and informal control as complement or substitute? The role of the task environment. Strategy Sci. 1(4):235–255. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2016.0019.Lim E, Audia PG (2020) Problem-solving or self-enhancing? Influences of diversification and bright spot on corporate resource allocation responses to performance shortfalls. Strategy Sci. 5(4):348–368. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2020.0117.Nardi L, Zenger T, Lazzarini SG, Cabral S (2022) Doing well by doing good, uniquely: Materiality and the market value of unique CSR strategies. Strategy Sci. 7(1):10–26. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2021.0145.Natividad G, Rawley E (2016) Interdependence and performance: A natural experiment in firm scope. Strategy Sci. 1(1):12–31. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/stsc.2015.0004.Sakhartov AV (2022) Corporate diversification and risk: Portfolio effects and resource redeployability. Strategy Sci. 7(4):317–329. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2021.0154.Non-Market StrategiesAhuja G, Capron L, Lenox M, Yao DA (2018) Strategy and the institutional envelope. (Special issue introduction.) Strategy Sci. 3(2):ii–x. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0062.Balachandran S, Hernandez E (2019) Do institutional reforms perpetuate or mitigate the Matthew effect? Intellectual property rights and access to international alliances. Strategy Sci. 4(2):151–174. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2019.0082.Li C, Csaszar FA (2019) Government as landscape designer: A behavioral view of industrial policy. Strategy Sci. 4(3):175–192. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2019.0080.Mohr A, Schumacher C (2019) The contingent effect of patriotic rhetoric on firm performance. Strategy Sci. 4(2):94–110. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2019.0085.Nartey LJ, Henisz WJ, Dorobantu S (2018) Status climbing vs. bridging: Multinational stakeholder engagement strategies. Strategy Sci. 3(2):367–392. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0057.3Oberholzer-Gee F, Yao DA (2018) Integrated strategy: Residual market and exchange imperfections as the foundation of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategy Sci. 3(2):463–480. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0061.Woolley JL, Pozner J-E, DeSoucey M (2022) Raising the bar: Values-driven niche creation in U.S. bean-to-bar chocolate. Strategy Sci. 7(1):27–55. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/stsc.2021.0147.Empirical MethodsAlcácer J, Chung W, Hawk A, Pacheco-de-Almeida G (2018) Applying random coefficient models to strategy research: Identifying and exploring firm heterogeneous effects. Strategy Sci. 3(3):533–553. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0064.Bennett VM, Snyder J (2017) The empirics of learning from failure. Strategy Sci. 2(1):1–12. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2016.0020.Shaver JM (2019) Interpreting interactions in linear fixed-effect regression models: When fixed-effect estimates are no longer within-effects. Strategy Sci. 4(1):25–40. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2018.0065.Vanneste BS (2017) How much do industry, corporation, and business matter, really? A meta-analysis. Strategy Sci. 2(2):121–139. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/stsc.2017.0029.Endnotes1 The inaugural winner of the Strategy Science Best Paper Award.2 A runner-up for the 2017 Industry Studies Association’s Ralph Gomory Best Industry Studies Paper Award, a prestigious award given to select articles in Industrial and Corporate Change, the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, the Journal of International Business Studies, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, the Strategic Management Journal, and Strategy Science.3 Winner of the 2019 Industry Studies Association’s Ralph Gomory Best Industry Studies Paper Award (see Endnote 2 for more information about the award).Daniel A. Levinthal is the Reginald H. Jones Professor of Corporate Strategy at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He has served as editor-in-chief of Strategy Science, as editor-in-chief of Organization Science, and as the department editor for business strategy at Management Science. His research focuses on questions of organizational adaptation and industry evolution, particularly in the context of technological change.Gwendolyn K. Lee is the Chester C. Holloway Professor of Strategy, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, and the recipient of the University of Florida Term Professorship. She currently serves as senior editor of Strategy Science. Her research projects on causal identification and artificial intelligence have been funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Volume 8, Issue 1March 2023Pages 1-119, C3 Article Information Metrics Information Received:November 13, 2022Accepted:November 23, 2022Published Online:March 10, 2023 Copyright © 2023, INFORMSCite asDaniel A. Levinthal, Gwendolyn K. Lee (2023) Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue: Strategy Science’s Contributions to Doctoral Reading Lists. Strategy Science 8(1):117-119. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0181 Keywordscompetitive strategycorporate strategydecision makingindustry dynamicsnon-market strategiestechnology strategyPDF download