Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T15:10:49.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Epistemological Alternatives for Researching Strategy as Practice: Building and Dwelling Worldviews

from Part I - Ontological and Epistemological Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2025

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

Robert Chia and Andreas Rasche elaborate on the challenges of capturing the actual doing of strategy, which requires researchers to adopt a new worldview. They argue that the traditional ways of studying strategy work have led to an explanatory rupture between research accounts of strategy practice and the practice itself, which is intimately linked to the adoption of a set of epistemological premises that they term the building worldview. This view is characterized by two basic assumptions: (1) individuals are treated as discretely bounded entities; and (2) there is a clear split between the mental and physical realm; cognition and mental representation of the world necessarily precede any meaningful action. Accordingly, strategic action is explained through recourse to the intention of actors. They contrast this with what they refer to as dwelling world-view, which allows getting close to the actual doing of strategy because it does away with the assumption that identities and personal characteristics pre-exist social practice. Within this view, vocial practices are given primacy over individual agency and intention. Thus, strategic actions are explained not on the basis of individual intentions but as the product of particular, historically situated practices. Chia and Rasche discuss the epistemological consequences of these two worldviews showing how research findings depend on the chosen worldview.

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Baumard, P. (1999), Tacit Knowledge in Organizations. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2005), ‘From intended strategy to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking’, Organization Studies, 26/11: 1573–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J., Huff, A. S. and Johnson, P. (2003), ‘Three responses to methodological challenges of studying strategizing’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 197224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencherki, N., Sergi, V., Cooren, F. and Vásquez, C. (2019), ‘How strategy comes to matter: strategizing as the communicative materialization of matters of concern’, Strategic Organization, 19/4: 608–35.Google Scholar
Bennis, W. G. and O’Toole, J. (2005), ‘How business schools lost their way’, Harvard Business Review, 83/5: 96105.Google ScholarPubMed
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branson, R. (2007), Screw It, Let’s Do It: Lessons in Life. London: Virgin Books.Google Scholar
Chia, R. (2004), ‘Strategy-as-practice: reflections on the research agenda’, European Management Review, 1/1: 2934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006), ‘Strategy as practical coping: a Heideggerian perspective’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 635–55.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cooper, R. (1976), ‘The open field’, Human Relations, 29: 9991017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Certeau, M. (1984), The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A. and Rouleau, L. (2007), ‘Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: rethinking theoretical frames’, Human Relations, 60/1: 179215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detienne, M. and Vernant, J. P. (1978), Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (1988), ‘The Socratic and Platonic basis of cognitivism’, AI & Society, 2/2: 99112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (1991), Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, J. (1993), Back to the Rough Ground: ‘Phronesis’ and ‘Techné’ in Modern Philosophy and in Aristotle. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1978), What Is Sociology? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1991), The Society of Individuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (2008), ‘Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: a supplement to rationalist and interpretive accounts’, Organization Studies, 29/2: 191217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (2010), ‘Strategy and strategizing: a poststructuralist perspective’, in Baum, J. A. C., and Lampel, J. (eds), Advances in Strategic Management, vol. XXVII, The Globalization of Strategy Research: 75109. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1984), ‘Truth and power’, in Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader: 5175. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Travistock.Google 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
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. (2000), The Perception of the Environment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2003), ‘Strategic practices: an activity theory perspective on continuity and change’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004), ‘Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use’, Organization Studies, 25/4: 529–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005), Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based Approach. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007), ‘Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective’, Human Relations, 60/1: 527.CrossRefGoogle 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: 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jullien, F. (2000), Detour and Access: Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Jullien, F. (2004), A Treatise on Efficacy: Between Western and Chinese Thinking, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E. and Rabetino, R. (2022), Making connections: harnessing the diversity of strategy-as-practice research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24: 210–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laine, P.-M. and Vaara, E. (2007), ‘Struggling over subjectivity: a discursive analysis of strategic development in an engineering group’, Human Relations, 60/1: 2958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. (1959), ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19/2: 7988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, B., Chia, R. and Nair, A. (2020), ‘Strategy-in-Practices: a process-philosophical approach to understanding strategy emergence and organizational outcomes’, Human Relations, 74/9: 1337–69.Google Scholar
Mantere, S. (2005), ‘Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity’, Strategic Organization, 3/2: 157–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1972), ‘Model bias in social action’, Review of Educational Research, 42/4: 413–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, D. (2010), ‘Strategy-as-power: ambiguity, contradiction and the exercise of power in a UK building society’, Organization, 17/2: 151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985), ‘Of strategies, deliberate and emergent’, Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2007), ‘Strategic management as distributed practical wisdom (phronesis)’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16/3: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (1986), The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paroutis, S. and Heracleous, L. (2013), ‘Discourse revisited: dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption’, Strategic Management Journal, 34/8: 935–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. T. (2002), ‘The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1/1: 7895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (2009), The Tacit Dimension Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Raphals, L. (1992), Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. (2008), The Paradoxical Foundation of Strategic Management. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rasche, A. and Chia, R. (2009), ‘Researching strategy practices: a genealogical social theory perspective’, Organization Studies, 30(7): 713–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnér, P. (2003), ‘Strategy creation in the periphery: inductive versus deductive strategy making’, Journal of Management Studies, 40/1: 5782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2005), ‘The sites of organizations’, Organization Studies, 26(3): 465–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. (1998), Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. (2007), Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Starkey, K. and Tempest, S. (2009), ‘The winter of our discontent – the design challenge for business schools’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8/4: 576–86.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2010), ‘Practice, strategy making and intentionality: a Heideggerian onto-epistemology for strategy as practice’, in Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., and Vaara, E. (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice: 4762. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Mises, L. (1998 [1949]). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (Scholar’s edn.). Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1968 [1922]), Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell.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(S1): S67S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (1996), ‘Strategy as practice’, Long Range Planning, 29/5: 731–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2003), ‘The work of strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective’, Strategic Organization, 1/1: 117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006), ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Gilchrist, A., Mueller, F. and Lenney, P. (2021), ‘The art of stage-craft: a dramaturgical perspective on strategic change’, Strategic Organization, 19/4: 636–66.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
×