Taking Stock of Research Methods in Strategy-as-Practice

1. IntroductionResearch methods are an 'intricate set of ontological and epistemological assumptions that a researcher brings to his or her work' (Prasad 1997 quoted in Mir and Watson 2000). Strategy-as-practice research subsumes a plurality of interests and research methods mainly with the lens of sociology (Jarzabkowski 2004; Whittington 2007). It draws upon sociological and philosophical developments related to practice theory, such as the well known works of Bourdieu, de Certeau, Giddens, Schatzki, Sztompka and others (see Jarzabkowski 2004 for an overview). Johnson et al. (2007) believe that the pragmatist tradition of philosophy, in highlighting the importance of the practical, is winning attention (Egginton and Sandbothe 2004 quoted in Johnson et al. 2007) in recent years. Basically, strategy-as-practice simply requires one to "go out and look" so as to find ways to capture such activity as it occurs, so that it can be examined closely and understood, similar to a "direct research? approach proposed by Mintzberg (1979). Epistemologically, most strategy-as-practice studies have taken different positions, ranging from post-positivist to interpretive (Johnson et.al. 2007). Strategy-as-practice research provides understanding of a complex phenomenon in language rich and holistic process terms, rather than statistically significant but limited variance terms. The orientation towards "action research? complicates research conclusions due to the close proximity between the observer and the observed (Johnson et al. 2007). This article assesses four major research issues in strategy-as-practice research and their impact in advancing this field.2. Scope of the research questionThe first issue is the broader scope of strategy-as-practice research - studies of the strategizing process must go beyond the organisation (Whittington 2003, Jarzabkowski and Spee 2009) as it is influenced by policy makers, competitors, consultants and business schools as well as organisational members adapting practices from other organisations whose strategies they analyse, critique, enact, develop or change (Whittington 2003). Also strategic practice could be bottom-up or emerging from middle managers, consultant, senior executives, intrapreneurs and even members outside the organization, thus encompassing a plurality of actors. Johnson et al. (2007) explain that there is a move from the relatively unitary perspectives that have characterised strategy research in terms of levels of analysis, explanatory variables and theoretical perspectives, to greater plurality. Hendry and Seidl (2003) admit that strategy, as an activity, is not well defined, with the result that the empirical net is cast impracticably wide.3. Unit of analysisThe scope of the research question directly impacts the second issue - ambiguity in the unit of analysis in strategy-as-practice research. The unit of analysis refers to the precise object of the research, the entity about which one is trying to draw conclusions. Thus the focal unit of analysis could be very narrow (e.g. individual strategy retreats, workshops, managers, meetings, discourses, conversations etc.) or it could be broader (strategic decisions, strategic issues etc.). Hendry and Seidl (2003) have introduced the notion of "strategic episodes? where an episode is a sequence of events with a structured beginning and ending during which normal communicative practices are suspended and alternative communicative practices are explored. Similarly, analysing strategy off-sites and away-days as rituals could also provide interesting units of analysis (Bourque and Johnson 2008). In strategy-as-practice research, the unit of analysis has ranged from strategic episodes - such as strategic planning meetings, to implemented strategic decisions over a limited period of time - such as an acquisition, to the evolution of the firm? s strategy over a long period of time - such as international expansion. …