Abstract
This edited volume is an impressive collection of insightful work. Perhaps it is, for some of its contributors, a labour of love. A diverse set of scholars from across disciplinary and geographical boundaries have joined hands and come up with something unique. This book demonstrates the state of the art and intellectual scope of people who seek to approach strategic management and strategy work in organizations through alternative perspectives that can be broadly placed under the banner of ‘Strategy As Practice’, or S-A-P for short. The book is clearly also a political statement. It takes stock of contributions in an emerging and increasingly influential body of knowledge. It also provides answers to criticisms that its theoretical underpinnings have provoked among scholars who are not so convinced about its novelty and/or value added. In brief, this book was conceived for a reason, and should be cherished as such.
Scholars associating themselves with the S-A-P approach seem to encounter challenges and criticism from at least two directions. On the one hand, mainstream strategy scholars are doubtful of the questions that S-A-P seeks to answer, along with the new voices and understandings it attempts to bring to an established field. Some, especially those affiliated with North American universities, choose to ignore its contributions altogether. On the other hand, (critical) organization and management scholars—typically those who consider themselves well versed in practice-based approaches at large—may question the meaning of ‘practice’ in this kind of research. In their view, perhaps, S-A-P scholars just do not seem to get it right—there is always another book on practice(s) that they have missed or theoretical twist they have overlooked. A middle ground, or Third Way (sic), is always the toughest one. From this vantage point, the editors and contributors of this book need to be applauded. They have now made it clear where they stand.
‘Strategy as Practice’ runs the risk of becoming just another bandwagon. However, this book demonstrates the variety of scholarship (sometimes loosely) associated with the S-A-P approach. In this way, it answers to some of the criticism targeted at an allegedly elitist and parochial strategy research paradigm-in- the-making. In terms of content, there is something for (almost) everyone in this book. And I guess that is part of its appeal. S-A-P is presented as a vibrant home for intellect and creativity, not a tribe of chieftains, medicine men, totems and rituals.
The first part of the book deals with ontological and epistemological questions. It offers an impressive repertoire of chapters by well-known scholars, addressing the very tricky issue of what we mean by ‘practice’. The second part deals with theoretical directions, connecting S-A-P with structuration theory á la Anthony Giddens and fields inspired by Pierre Bourdieu, reflections on Ludwig Wittgenstein and Michel Foucault as well as activity theories and narrative analyses. The third part on methodological ‘tracks’ offers a set of alternatives, thus illustrating the many ways of doing S-A-P. Finally, the fourth part of the book deals with the variety of its applications. In a nutshell, the book underscores the value of diversity of scholarship, not always coherent and consistent, and for this journey alone, it is worth reading.
Considering the mainstream (often North American) hegemonic research on strategy and strategic management, this book is a breath of fresh air. For a (critical) organization theorist, in turn, it offers new stuff to be critical about. My verdict: check this out. This book will certainly play a central role in continuing the dialogue about what S-A-P is (or should be) about. The S-A-P community is a force to be reckoned with, and I’m looking forward to seeing what they think of next.