Archive for 10 December 2008
Directions for a Troubled Discipline: Strategy Research, Teaching, and Practice
| Peter Klein |
That’s the title of a symposium in the new issue of the Journal of Management Inquiry, edited by Michael Lounsbury and Paul Hirsch.
Debates about relevance versus rigor in management research have only grown in intensity over the past decade (e.g., Pfeffer, 2008). The following dialog highlights how these concerns have become manifest in the field of strategy, in which there has been disquiet in some circles about the dominance of abstract theorization and a movement toward a re-engagement with practice and practitioners (e.g., Jarzabkowski, 2005; Kaplan, 2003; Whittington, 2006; Whittington et. al., 2003). After a brief introduction by Jarzabkowski and Whittington that situates the dialog, Bower’s article “The Teaching of Strategy: From General Manager to Analyst and Back Again?” defends the importance of a practitioner focus by highlighting the historical role of process research in the early development of the business policy field and the case-oriented teaching tradition at the Harvard Business School. In contradistinction, Grant’s article on “Why Strategy Teaching Should be Theory Based” emphasizes the importance of economic theory in both strategy teaching in research. Finally, in “A Strategy-as-Practice Approach to Strategy Research and Education,” Jarzabkowski and Whittington conclude with an argument hat aims to forge a truce between these often rhetorically opposed positions. They argue that a strategy-as-practice perspective can usefully bridge the divide between research and practice without sacrificing either rigor or relevance.
This issue of JMI also includes a 25-year retrospective on DiMaggio and Powell’s famous “Iron Cage Revisited” paper, for you institutional isomorphism types out there (we know who you are).
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments