Taking Stock of Research Methods in Strategy-as-Practice

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. It requires mapping individual and organisational activities in the process of strategizing. This article assesses four research issues in strategy-as-practice research and their impact in advancing this field. First, the broader scope of strategy-as-practice research - studies of the strategizing process must look at influences beyond the organisation. Second, the ambiguity in the unit of analysis, which ranges from strategic episodes, to implemented strategic decisions, to the evolution of strategy over time - the consensus is to look at 'a practice' as a unit of analysis. Third, the choice of the dependant variable or the outcome of strategizing process as going beyond firm level performance to impacts on individuals, groups, institutions and practice communities. Fourth, specifying the level of analysis, to distinguish between individual, group, organisational, institutional and practice community outcomes, even as such research covers multiple levels of analysis to be holistic as well as nuanced in insight. Strategy-as-practice research provides scope in including the experienced strategist as a partner with more nuanced understanding of the phenomena rather than as a subject of research. We suggest that better process data may be revealed by organization that voluntarily initiate a consultation process with a researcher as it benefits by doing so. We conclude that clinical research methods, that include such intervention, provide better understanding of the phenomena of strategizing and suggest ways for these methods to gain greater acceptability in the practice of strategy-as-practice research.