Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategising

Julia Balogun, Anne Sigismund Huff, Phyl Johnson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    148 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Empirical studies of strategizing face contradictory pressures. Ethnographic approaches are attractive, and typically expected since we need to collect data on strategists and their practices within context. We argue, however, that today's large, multinational, and highly diversified organizational settings require complimentary methods providing more breadth and flexibility. This paper discusses three particularly promising approaches (interactive discussion groups, self-reports, and practitioner-led research) that fit the increasingly disparate research paradigms now being used to understand strategizing and other management issues. Each of these approaches is based on the idea that strategizing research cannot advance significantly without reconceptualizing frequently taken-for-granted assumptions about the way to do research and the way we engage with organizational participants. The paper focuses in particular on the importance of working with organizational members as research partners rather than passive informants.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages197-223
    Number of pages26
    JournalJournal of Management Studies
    Volume40
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2003

    Fingerprint

    Strategizing
    Empirical study
    Interactive approach
    Multinationals
    Research paradigms
    Self-report
    Issue management
    Group discussion

    Keywords

    • interactive discussion groups
    • self-reports
    • strategic management
    • business management

    Cite this

    Balogun, Julia ; Huff, Anne Sigismund ; Johnson, Phyl. / Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategising. In: Journal of Management Studies. 2003 ; Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 197-223.
    @article{eaedbac543da49b697e1caa1836f281e,
    title = "Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategising",
    abstract = "Empirical studies of strategizing face contradictory pressures. Ethnographic approaches are attractive, and typically expected since we need to collect data on strategists and their practices within context. We argue, however, that today's large, multinational, and highly diversified organizational settings require complimentary methods providing more breadth and flexibility. This paper discusses three particularly promising approaches (interactive discussion groups, self-reports, and practitioner-led research) that fit the increasingly disparate research paradigms now being used to understand strategizing and other management issues. Each of these approaches is based on the idea that strategizing research cannot advance significantly without reconceptualizing frequently taken-for-granted assumptions about the way to do research and the way we engage with organizational participants. The paper focuses in particular on the importance of working with organizational members as research partners rather than passive informants.",
    keywords = "interactive discussion groups, self-reports, strategic management, business management",
    author = "Julia Balogun and Huff, {Anne Sigismund} and Phyl Johnson",
    year = "2003",
    doi = "10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00009",
    language = "English",
    volume = "40",
    pages = "197--223",
    journal = "Journal of Management Studies",
    issn = "0022-2380",
    number = "1",

    }

    Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategising. / Balogun, Julia; Huff, Anne Sigismund; Johnson, Phyl.

    In: Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2003, p. 197-223.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Three responses to the methodological challenges of studying strategising

    AU - Balogun, Julia

    AU - Huff, Anne Sigismund

    AU - Johnson, Phyl

    PY - 2003

    Y1 - 2003

    N2 - Empirical studies of strategizing face contradictory pressures. Ethnographic approaches are attractive, and typically expected since we need to collect data on strategists and their practices within context. We argue, however, that today's large, multinational, and highly diversified organizational settings require complimentary methods providing more breadth and flexibility. This paper discusses three particularly promising approaches (interactive discussion groups, self-reports, and practitioner-led research) that fit the increasingly disparate research paradigms now being used to understand strategizing and other management issues. Each of these approaches is based on the idea that strategizing research cannot advance significantly without reconceptualizing frequently taken-for-granted assumptions about the way to do research and the way we engage with organizational participants. The paper focuses in particular on the importance of working with organizational members as research partners rather than passive informants.

    AB - Empirical studies of strategizing face contradictory pressures. Ethnographic approaches are attractive, and typically expected since we need to collect data on strategists and their practices within context. We argue, however, that today's large, multinational, and highly diversified organizational settings require complimentary methods providing more breadth and flexibility. This paper discusses three particularly promising approaches (interactive discussion groups, self-reports, and practitioner-led research) that fit the increasingly disparate research paradigms now being used to understand strategizing and other management issues. Each of these approaches is based on the idea that strategizing research cannot advance significantly without reconceptualizing frequently taken-for-granted assumptions about the way to do research and the way we engage with organizational participants. The paper focuses in particular on the importance of working with organizational members as research partners rather than passive informants.

    KW - interactive discussion groups

    KW - self-reports

    KW - strategic management

    KW - business management

    UR - http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00009

    U2 - 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00009

    DO - 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00009

    M3 - Article

    VL - 40

    SP - 197

    EP - 223

    JO - Journal of Management Studies

    T2 - Journal of Management Studies

    JF - Journal of Management Studies

    SN - 0022-2380

    IS - 1

    ER -