Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-trbww Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T09:25:00.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Constructivist Paradigms and Their Relevance for Strategy-as-Practice Research

from Part I - Ontological and Epistemological Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2025

By
Simon Grand ,
Widar von Arx  and
Johannes Rüegg-Stürm
Edited by
Damon Golsorkhi ,
Linda Rouleau ,
David Seidl  and
Eero Vaara
Damon Golsorkhi
Affiliation:
emlyon Business School
Linda Rouleau
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Eero Vaara
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Simon Grand, Widar von Arx and Johannes Rüegg-Stürm argue that real practice research needs to be accompanied by constructivist epistemologies. They show that while there are many variants of constructivism, they all share four central concerns: (1) they question a concept of ‘reality’ as something that is ‘objectively given’; (2) they study the status of knowledge and the processes through which it is constructed; (3) they treat agency in the construction of reality as distributed among heterogeneous actants; and (4) they challenge the predominance of unquestioned dichotomies in the social sciences, like micro vs. macro or situated activities vs. collective practices. After introducing and comparing the three most central constructivist perspectives, Grand and his co-authors discuss the implications of the four central assumptions of strategy as practice research, useful for the study of strategizing practices, the understanding of strategy and the conduct of strategy research. Above all, they emphasize that the very notion of strategy and strategizing practice contains nothing that can be taken as given, but is instead the result of continuous (re)construction by the activities of the practitioners and researchers involved.

Keywords

strategy as practicepractice approachconstructivism
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice , pp. 63 - 79
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvesson, M. and Blom, M. (2022), ‘The hegemonic ambiguity of big concepts in organization studies’, Human Relations, 75/1: 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004), ‘Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking’, Academy of Management Journal, 47/4: 523–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972), Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1967), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (1991), De la justification: Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. (1970), Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of Corporate Planning and Investment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. and Gilbert, C. G. (2005), From Resource Allocation to Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016), ‘The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics’, Organization Science, 27/3, 594–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1994), ‘Fading memories: a process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39/1: 24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (2005), Strategy Is Destiny: How Strategy-Making Shapes a Company’s Future, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Floyd, S. W., Laamanen, T., et al. (2018), ‘Strategy processes and practices: dialogues and intersections’, Strategic Management Journal, 39/3, 531–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, M. (1986), ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?: 196–223. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2009), Strategy without Design: The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chia, R. and MacKay, B. (2007), ‘Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice’, Human Relations, 60/1: 217–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R. and Tsoukas, H. (2002), ‘On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change’, Organization Science, 13/5: 567–82.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M. and Bower, J. L. (1996), ‘Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 17/3: 197–218.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. (2005), Engagierte Beobachter: Die Intellektuellen und die Versuchungen der Zeit. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.Google Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L. and Langley, A. (2001), ‘The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, 44/4: 809–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016), ‘Talking about routines: the role of reflective talk in routine change’, Organization Science, 27/3: 678–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, T. (1992), ‘A new paradigm for the sociology of knowledge: “the social construction of reality” after 25 years’, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 18/2: 493–502.Google Scholar
Elkana, Y. (1986), Anthropologie der Erkenntnis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2015), ‘Theory of routine dynamics and connections to strategy as practice’, in Golshorki, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., and Vaara, E. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook on Strategy as Practice: 317–30, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011), ‘Theorizing practice and practicing theory’, Organization Science, 22/5: 1240–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003), ‘Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48/1: 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., d’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016), ‘Beyond routines as things: introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics’, Organization Science, 27/3: 505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M .S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., et al. (eds) (2021), Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, L. (1980), Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Floyd, S. W. and Lane, P. J. (2000), ‘Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in strategic renewal’, Academy of Management Review, 25/1: 145–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1971), Die Ordnung der Dinge: Eine Archäologie der Humanwissenschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1987), Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gomez, P.-Y. and Jones, B. C. (2000), ‘Conventions: an interpretation of deep structure in organizations’, Organization Science, 11/6: 696–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. (1987), Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Grand, S. (2003), ‘Praxisrelevanz versus Praxisbezug der Forschung in der Managementforschung’, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 63/5: 599–604.Google Scholar
Grand, S. (2016), Routines, Strategies and Management: Engaging for Recurrent Creation ‘at the Edge’. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, S. and Ackeret, A. (2012), ‘Managing knowledge: a process view’, in Schultz, M., Maguire, S., Langley, A., and Tsoukas, H. (eds), Constructing Identity in and around Organizations: 261–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, S. and Bartl, D. (2019), ‘Making new strategic moves possible: how executive management enacts strategizing routines to strengthen entrepreneurial agility’, in Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., and Jarzabkowski, P (eds), Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 61: 123–52. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. (2003), ‘Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors’, Strategic Management Journal, 24/6: 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994), ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 105–17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999), The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, C. and Thomas, R. (2014), ‘Strategy, discourse and practice: the intensification of power’, Journal of Management Studies, 51/2: 320–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, J. and Seidl, D. (2003), ‘The structure and significance of strategic episodes: social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E. (1931), Cartesianische Meditationen: Eine Einleitung in die Phänomenologie. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004), ‘Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use’, Organization Studies, 25/1: 529–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. and Kaplan, S. (2015), ‘Strategy tools-in-use: a framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice’, Strategic Management Journal, 36/4: 537–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. and Whittington, R. (2008), ‘Directions for a troubled discipline: strategy research, teaching, and practice – introduction to the dialog’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 17/4: 266–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007), ‘Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective’, Human Relations, 60/1: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Seidl, D. and Balogun, J. (2022), ‘From germination to propagation: two decades of Strategy-as-Practice research and potential future directions’, Human Relations, 75/8: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joas, H. (1992), Die Kreativität des Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003), ‘Guest editors’ introduction: Micro strategy and strategizing: towards an activity-based view’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2007), The Practice of Strategy: Research Directions and Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2011), ‘Strategy and PowerPoint: an inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making’, Organization Science, 22/2: 320–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpik, L. (2010), Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoblauch, H. (2005), Wissenssoziologie. Konstanz: UVK Verlag.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, K. (1989), ‘Spielarten des Konstruktivismus: einige Notizen und Anmerkungen’, Soziale Welt, 40/1–2: 86–96.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, K. (2002), Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis: Zur Anthropologie der Naturwissenschaft: Erweiterte Neuaissenschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E. and Rabetino, R. (2021), ‘Making connections: harnessing the diversity of strategy-as-practice research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 24/2: 1–23.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1974), ‘Second thoughts on paradigms’, in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories: 459–82. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. (2007), ‘Process thinking in strategic organization’, Strategic Organization, 5/3: 271–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1999), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2004), After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J. (2008), ‘Actor network theory and material semiotics’, in Turner, B. S. (ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory: 141–58. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Luckmann, T. (1992), ‘Social construction and after’, Perspectives, 15/2: 4–5.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1986), ‘The autopoiesis of social systems’, in Geyer, F., and van der Zouwen, J. (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems: 176–92. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1996), Social Systems. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (2002), Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag.Google Scholar
Lury, C. and Wakeford, N. (eds) (2012), Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S. (2005), ‘Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity’, Strategic Organization, 3/2: 157–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantere, S. and Vaara, E. (2008), ‘On the problem of participation in strategy: a critical discursive perspective’, Organization Science, 19/2: 341–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1987), The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1971), ‘Managerial work: analysis from observation’, Management Science, 18/2: 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (2009), Managing. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. and McHugh, A. (1985), ‘Strategy formation in an adhocracy’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30/2: 160–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirabeau, L., Maguire, S. and Hardy, C. (2018), ‘Bridging practice and process research to study transient manifestations of strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, 39/3: 582–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A. (1999), ‘Ontological politics: a word and some questions’, in Law, J., and Hassard, J. (eds), Actor Network Theory and After: 74–89. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), ‘Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations’, Organization Science, 11/4: 404–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002), ‘Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributive organizing’, Organization Science, 13/3: 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. (1985), The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical Industries. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. (1987), ‘Context and action in the transformation of the firm’, Journal of Management Studies 24/6: 649–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Régner, P. (2003), ‘Strategy creation in the periphery: inductive versus deductive strategy making’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1989), Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouleau, L. (2005), ‘Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: how middle managers interpret and sell change every day’, Journal of Management Studies, 42/7: 1413–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouleau, L. (2013), ‘L’ethnographie organisationnelle d’hier à Demain’, Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, S: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüegg-Stürm, J. and Grand, S. (2014), Das St Galler Management-Modell. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
Rumelt, R. (2011), Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003), ‘Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 141–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2005), ‘Practice mind-ed orders’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and Savigny, E. von (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 50–63. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (eds) (2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1932), Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A. (1967 [1932]), The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Seidl, D. (2007), ‘General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: a systemic-discursive perspective’, Organization Studies, 28/2: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, D., Grossmann-Hensel, B. and Jarzabkowski, P. (2021), ‘Strategy as practice and routine dynamics’, in Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., et al. (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics: 481–500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soeffner, H.-G. (1989), Auslegung des Alltags – Der Alltag der Auslegung: zur wissenssoziologischen Konzeption einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Hermeneutik. Frankfurt a.K.: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Spender, J. C. (1996), ‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17/S2: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Splitter, V. and Seidl, D. (2011), ‘Does practice-based research on strategy lead to practically relevant knowledge? Implications of a Bourdieusian perspective’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47/1: 98–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. (1987), Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1985), Philosophical Papers, vol. I, Human Agency and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thévenot, L. (2001), ‘Pragmatic régimes governing the engagement with the world’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and Savigny, E. von (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 56–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thévenot, L. (2006), L’action au pluriel: Sociologie des régimes d’engagement. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (1996), ‘The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach’, Strategic Management Journal, 17/S2: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2005), Complex Knowledge: Studies in Organizational Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002), ‘On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change’, Organization Science, 13/5: 567–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (2002), ‘The conduct of strategy research’, in Pettigrew, A. M., Thomas, H., and Whittington, R. (eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management: 411–35. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Vaara, E. and Whittington, R. (2012), ‘Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously’, Academy of Management Annals, 6/1: 285–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Foerster, H. (1981), Observing Systems, Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.Google Scholar
Wacquant, L. (2022), Body & Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. (1988), The Company of Critics: Social Criticism and Political Commitment in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P. (ed.) (1984), The Invented Reality: How Do We Know What We Believe We Know? New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Werle, F. and Seidl, D. (2015), ‘The layered materiality of strategizing: epistemic objects and the interplay between material artefacts in the exploration of strategic topics’, British Journal of Management, 26: S67–S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westley, F. (1990), ‘Middle managers and strategy: microdynamics of inclusion’, Strategic Management Journal, 11/5: 337–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (1996), ‘Strategy as practice’, Long Range Planning, 29/5: 731–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2007), ‘Strategy practice and strategy process: family differences and the sociological eye’, Organization Studies, 28/10: 1575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2018), ‘Greatness takes practice: on practice theory’s relevance to “Great Strategy”’, Strategy Science, 3/1: 343–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R., Jarzabkowski, P., Mayer, M., Mounoud, E., Nahapiet, J. and Rouleau, L. (2003), ‘Taking strategy seriously responsibility and reform for an important social practice’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12/4: 396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×