Langley & Abdallah 2011

TEMPLATES AND TURNS IN
QUALITATIVE STUDIES OF
STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT
Ann Langley and Chahrazad Abdallah
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter presents four different approaches to doing and

writing qualitative research in strategy and management based on
different epistemological foundations. It describes two well-established
‘‘templates’’ for doing such work, and introduces two more recent ‘‘turns’’
that merit greater attention.
Design/Methodology/Approach – The chapter draws on methodological
texts and a detailed analysis of successful empirical exemplars from the
strategy and organization literature to show how qualitative research on
strategy processes can be effectively carried out and written up.
Findings – The two ‘‘templates’’ are based on different logics and modes
of writing. The first is based on a positivist epistemology and aims to
develop nomothetic theoretical propositions, while the second is
interpretive and more concerned to capture and gain insight from the
meanings given to organizational phenomena. The two ‘‘turns’’ (the
practice turn and the discursive turn) are not as well defined but are
generating innovative contributions based on new ways of considering the
social world.
Building Methodological Bridges

Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 6, 105–140
Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-8387/doi:10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006007
105
106 ANN LANGLEY AND CHAHRAZAD ABDALLAH
Originality/Value – The chapter should be helpful to researchers

considering qualitative methods for the study of strategy processes. It
contributes by comparing different approaches and by recognizing that
part of the challenge of doing qualitative research lies in writing it up to
communicate its insights in a credible way. Thus while describing the
different methods, the chapter also draws attention to effective forms of
writing. In addition, it introduces and assesses two more recent ‘‘turns’’
that offer promising routes to novel insight as well as having parti-
cular ontological and epistemological affinities with qualitative research
methods.
Keywords: case studies; qualitative research; strategy process; strategy

as practice; discourse
This chapter discusses a range of ways in which qualitative methods may be

used to study and theorize about strategy processes, that is, to examine the
how questions of strategic management that deal with phenomena such as
decision making, learning, strategizing, planning, innovating, and changing
(Van de Ven, 1992). Qualitative data have particular strengths for under-
standing processes because of their capacity to capture temporally evolving
phenomena in rich detail, something that is hard to do with methodologies
based on quantitative surveys or archival databases that are coarse-grained
and tend to ‘‘skim the surface of processes rather than plunging into them
directly’’ (Langley, 1999, p. 705).
Our focus will thus be on the study of strategy processes taken as an
empirical phenomenon drawing on qualitative data that examines these
processes over time, that is, using what has been called ‘‘process data’’
(Langley, 1999). Process data tend to incorporate a mix of in vivo
observations (meetings, conversations, events, shadowing, etc.), memories
and interpretations (real time or retrospective interviews, focus groups,
questionnaires, diaries, etc.) and artifacts (minutes, plans, reports, archival
records, etc.). However, the key challenge of doing qualitative research on
organizational processes lies not so much in collecting these data but in
making sense of them to generate a valuable theoretical contribution. The
data tend to be complex, messy, eclectic, and with varying degrees of
temporal embeddedness. In a previous paper, the first author proposed
seven strategies for addressing this challenge include composing case
narratives, quantification of incidents, using alternate theoretical templates,
grounded theorizing, visual mapping, temporal decomposition, and case
comparisons (Langley, 1999).
Templates and Turns in Qualitative Studies of Strategy and Management 107
In this chapter, while building on previous work, we take a somewhat

different perspective on the mobilization of qualitative data to analyze
strategy processes. First, the chapter recognizes that qualitative methods are
associated with a range of different epistemological assumptions and that
these may have important implications for the way in which data are
interpreted as well as for the theoretical products generated by the analysis.
Second, the chapter also recognizes that part of the challenge of doing
qualitative research lies in writing it up to communicate its insights in a
credible way. Thus while describing methods, we also draw attention to
effective forms of writing. Third, we focus the chapter around two rather
well-established ‘‘templates’’ for doing qualitative studies of strategy
processes and contrast these with two more recent ‘‘turns’’ that offer
promising routes to novel insight as well as having particular ontological
and epistemological affinities with qualitative research methods.
We begin by describing the two ‘‘templates’’ that have each given rise to
a body of work where it seems that the norms of presentation and
methodological process have become to a degree standardized and insti-
tutionalized among a set of scholars. These templates are far from
exhaustive of approaches for qualitative research on strategy processes.
However, we believe that they are particularly instructive. Then we consider
the implications of two nascent ‘‘turns’’ (the practice turn and the discursive
turn) in qualitative analysis of strategy processes that we argue merit greater
attention.
TWO TEMPLATES
One of the common complaints (but for some of us, the rather attractive
qualities) about qualitative research is that unlike quantitative studies, the
rules, formats, and norms for doing, writing, and publishing it are not
uniform or well-established. It is not for nothing that Michael Pratt titled a
recent editorial in Academy of Management Journal about writing qualitative
research for the journal ‘‘For the lack of a boilerplate’’ (Pratt, 2009). We do
however see the emergence of at least two templates for qualitative studies
that have achieved some penetration in the North American management
journals, that are each based on different epistemological assumptions, and
that are sometimes being used as yardsticks by others. In honor of their
originators, we label these the Eisenhardt method and the Gioia method.
Both of these have given rise to some highly influential contributions to
strategy process research.
As mentioned earlier, in describing these approaches, we focus not only

on the logical structure of the method itself but also on the rhetorical
structure that is used to support it in published articles. These two
dimensions seem to us to be inextricably linked and indeed contribute to
constituting the template. Since Golden-Biddle and Locke (2006, 1993) drew
our attention to the way in which skillful writers of qualitative research
convince their readers, there is increasing realization that writing and
rhetoric matter. Thus, the two approaches each have their own internal
logics and rhetorical power that we describe below and summarize in
Table 1. Note that our accounts of these approaches are based for the most
part on a close reading of published papers by key authors, but include also
ideas gleaned from conference presentations and in the second case from
personal communication.1
The Eisenhardt Template: Credibly Novel Nomothetic Theory

from Case Comparisons
Kathleen Eisenhardt’s (1989a) article on ‘‘Building theories from case study

research’’ is now a classic methodological reference both within the field of
management and beyond (Ravenswood, forthcoming), with over 11,000
citations on Google scholar at time of writing. Even more impressive
perhaps, Eisenhardt and her colleagues have published a continuous stream
of exemplars of the approach that while innovating in their substantive topic
foci, replicate both the logic of the method and the rhetoric underpinning its
first empirical applications (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988; Eisenhardt,
1989b). For example, papers coauthored by Eisenhardt or her students and
collaborators have examined factors associated with fast decision making
(Eisenhardt, 1989b), successful approaches to continuous innovation
(Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997), charter changes in multi-divisional businesses
(Galunic, 2001; Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1996), how entrepreneurs success-
fully shape organizational boundaries and markets in their favor (Santos &
Eisenhardt, 2009), networking strategies associated with successful industry
positioning (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009), the role of seller perspectives and
trust in acquisitions (Graebner & Eisenhardt, 2004; Graebner, 2004, 2009),
patterns of planning and improvisation in successful internationalization
(Bingham, 2009), the origins of success in cross-business collaboration
(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2010), and the strategies used by entrepreneurs to
build relationships with venture capitalists (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2009).
Table 1. Two Templates for Qualitative Studies of Strategy

and Management.
The ‘‘Eisenhardt Method’’ The ‘‘Gioia Method’’
Key methodological Eisenhardt (1989a) None, but see Gioia (2004) for
reference personal reflections on
research philosophy
Exemplar empirical Eisenhardt (1989b), Brown and Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991),
articles Eisenhardt (1997), Martin and Corley and Gioia (2004),
Eisenhardt (2010) Gioia et al. (2010)
Central Yin (2009) on case study research, Glaser and Strauss (1967);
methodological but see also Miles and Strauss and Corbin (1990) on
inspirations Huberman (1994) grounded theory
Epistemological – Post-positivist assumptions – Interpretive assumptions
foundations and – Purpose: developing theory in – Purpose: capturing and
purposes the form of testable modeling of informant
propositions meanings
– Search for facts (e.g., emphasis – Search for informants’
on court-room style understandings of
interviewing) organizational events.
– Product: nomothetic theory – Product: process model/ novel
concept
Logic of the method Design to maximize credible novelty Design for revelation, richness and
trustworthiness
– Multiple cases (4–10) chosen – Single case chosen for its
to be sharply distinct on one key revelatory potential and
dimension (e.g., performance) richness of data
while similar on others
– Interview data with diverse – Real-time interviews and
informants observation
– Identify elements that – Build ‘‘data structure’’ by
distinguish high and low progressive abstraction
performing cases building on starting with informant first-
cross-case comparison order codes and building to
second-order themes and
aggregate dimensions
– Validity and reliability from – Trustworthiness from insider-
multiple researchers, outsider roles, member
triangulation of data checks, triangulation
Rhetoric of the Establishing novelty: Contrasting Establishing the gap: Show how
writing findings with previous research; this study fills a major gap
Providing evidence: Data Distilling the essence: Present the
presentation in two steps: (a) data structure emphasizing
data tables; (b) narrative second-order themes and
examples of high and low cases overarching dimensions
Table 1. (Continued )
The ‘‘Eisenhardt Method’’ The ‘‘Gioia Method’’
Offering explanation: Ask why for Elaborating the story: Elaborate

every proposition. Reasons the model in two ways; (a)
offered building on data and present the narrative;
literature; (b) additional quotes in tables
Integrating contribution: Link Reaffirm contribution: Return to
separate propositions together to opening gap to show novel
build theory insight.
Examples of other Zott and Huy (2007), Gilbert Maguire and Phillips (2008),
authors using (2005), Maitlis (2005) Anand, Gardner, and
similar approaches Morris (2007), Anand et al.
(2007), Rindova et al. (2011)
In another sign of the influence of this approach, in the late 1990s, the first
author received a review on a submission to a journal in which the reviewer
used Eisenhardt’s (1989a) eight-step method as a framework to guide the
review. Every one of the eight steps was analyzed in detail and the submission
was matched up against its standards. For better or worse, the method had
already acquired something of the character of a template.
Epistemological Foundations and Purposes: Toward Testable Propositions

Eisenhardt (1989a, p. 546) establishes her method as positivist in
orientation, aimed at ‘‘the development of testable hypotheses and theory
which are generalizable across settings.’’ The method is oriented toward
induction, that is, generating sets of formal propositions from case study
evidence, and is presented as suitable for situations where little is known
about a phenomenon or where current perspectives are conflicting or
confusing, and where case study evidence can therefore be seen to contribute
novel insight. At the same time, the method draws inspiration from Yin’s
(2009 [1984]) discussion of case study research, emphasizing a logic of
replication in which different cases are considered (much like different
experiments) as occasions for verifying and elaborating theoretical relation-
ships developed from previous cases. Overall, after reading many of the
articles produced with this approach, its power seems to lie in its ability to
generate findings that are claimed as novel-even ‘‘surprising,’’ and yet at the
same time to render these findings highly credible, something that appears
paradoxical at first sight. The need for both defamiliarization and

plausibility in qualitative research is probably universal and has been noted
before (e.g., Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1993). However, it seems to be a
particularly strong leitmotiv underlying this particular approach, and both
the logic of the method and the rhetoric of the writing in empirical articles
seem designed to achieve it.
Logic of the Method: Designing to Maximize the Chances of Credible Novelty

The replication logic proposed by Eisenhardt requires a substantial number of
comparative units of analysis or cases [Eisenhardt (1989a) suggests from four to
ten] because the objective is to abstract from these cases common constructs
that can then be used to describe and compare generic process components
across all the cases (usually in terms of categorical or ordinal scales), and
ultimately to relate these to outcome constructs representing some kind of
performance. Although the specifics of individual cases contribute importantly
to the nature of the constructs induced from the data, it is their common
dimensions across cases and not their idiosyncratic features that are
emphasized. Thus, the processes examined using this approach are taken as
wholes synthesized into a limited number of descriptive dimensions (con-
structs), rather than being elaborated idiographically.
However, to make this logic work, and to optimize the chances of credible
but novel insight, the cases cannot be and are not chosen arbitrarily. Key
elements of design include choosing and gaining access to promising
phenomena where new knowledge is likely to emerge, setting up comparisons
to maximize differences on one dimension while controlling for differences on
others, and ensuring coverage of perspectives within each case.
Planning for novel insight of course begins with the research questions
and empirical phenomena studied. Thus, Eisenhardt and her colleagues have
studied phenomena that have often been subject to quantitative research
previously (e.g., acquisitions, alliances, new technology ventures), but where
prior process-oriented research has been limited, and particularly so in the
dynamic fast-paced technological settings they have favored. Additionally,
recent studies demonstrate an impressive level of access to complex
situations that few have been able to obtain previously, enhancing the
probability of novel findings. For example, Ozcan and Eisenhardt (2009)
accessed six new entrants to the wireless video-gaming industry (of which
two turned out to be the top players) conducting three waves of interviews
with multiple organization members over time as well as interviews with
their main partner firms as they constructed their alliance portfolios. One
might speculate that the potential for such good access to novel situations
might be enhanced by previous successful research that has had practical

impact (as evidenced in this case by several Harvard Business Review
articles).
While controlling for secondary sources of variation (such as size,
industry, etc.), cases are also carefully selected to represent what Pettigrew
(1990) labeled ‘‘polar types,’’ thus emphasizing comparisons between
extremes so that, for example, the distinguishing features of high-
performing and low-performing cases have the strongest possible chance
of emerging clearly. As Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007, p. 27) explain,
‘‘Although such an approach can surprise reviewers because the resulting
theory is so consistently supported by the empirical evidence, this sampling
leads to very clear pattern recognition of the central constructs, relation-
ships, and logic of the focal phenomenon.’’ Sometimes, the authors have
collected data on more cases than they actually used in the analysis to
preserve the sharpness of the contrast (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). One
might ask what is missing from our understanding by removing considera-
tion of average run-of-the-mill firms. However, the sharpness in contrast is
clearly helpful in enhancing the clarity of insights.
The credibility of those insights is further enhanced by sampling multiple
perspectives within each case. For example, Graebner (2004, 2009)
interviewed both buyers and sellers in her study of acquisitions, Martin
and Eisenhardt (2010) interviewed managers at corporate and business unit
levels in their study of cross-divisional collaboration. While interviews tend
to be the main source of information with all their inherent limitations,
strong emphasis is also placed on collecting several kinds of data (e.g.,
quantitative scales embedded in interview protocols to triangulate
responses; archival sources), as well as on obtaining factual accounts
through techniques such as ‘‘courtroom style questioning’’ (mentioned in
the methods sections of most published articles). Finally, tandem
interviewing, electronic recording, and rapid transcription are cited as
further means of enhancing validity and reliability.
A good research question, a strong design and excellent data are clearly
helpful for developing novel and credible insight, but it is in the analysis that
this all comes together. Eisenhardt and her colleagues describe data analysis
as essentially a two-stage process, beginning first with the construction of
complete within-case narratives and followed by iterative processes of case
comparison that continues until a set of constructs that might explain
similarities and differences in outcomes begins to emerge (Eisenhardt,
1989a). The fashioning of these constructs is a creative moment of the

method because it involves bringing together pieces of case evidence to
refine emerging measures of constructs by tabulating data, as well as
elaborating understanding of how and why emerging relationships might
make sense. Clearly without being there, it is hard to experience the process
of analysis itself. However, its products can be appreciated more easily,
which brings us to the rhetorical dimension of the template.
Rhetoric of the Writing: Establishing Novelty, Providing Evidence, and

Offering Explanation
In addition to a methodological approach that maximizes the chances of
offering a novel but credible contribution, Eisenhardt and her colleagues
have perfected a distinct mode of writing case study articles that establishes
this value. We will use Eisenhardt’s (1989b) article on the speed of
organizational decision making and a more recent study by Martin and
Eisenhardt (2010) to illustrate the approach. The most interesting rhetorical
feature concerns how each individual finding or proposition is argued in
three key moves.
The first move involves establishing novelty. Here, for each finding, a
contrast is explicitly drawn between what previous literature and theory
would lead one to expect and the current finding. For example, Eisenhardt
(1989b) uses expressions such as, ‘‘The data from this research indicate a
different view’’ (p. 549), ‘‘In contrast,’’ (pp. 555, 559, 562). Martin and
Eisenhardt (2010) use expressions such as ‘‘unexpectedly’’ (p. 271) and
‘‘However we observed the opposite’’ (p. 283). The sharply constructed
contrast serves to introduce an unexpected or novel finding but also sets
up a tension that then has to be resolved – if this is so surprising, can we
believe it?
The resolution begins with the second move involving the presentation of
the evidence. In most of this stream of work, this occurs in two steps. The
first step involves presenting an overall semi-quantitative portrait of the
evidence supporting the proposed relationship in a table in which cases are
ordered vertically from more to less high performing. The columns of the
table draw together evidence from various sources. For example, Martin
and Eisenhardt (2010) argued that engaging in deliberate learning activities
contributes to successful cross-divisional collaboration and tabulated
evidence on this that included both counts of the number of activities
engaged in and two or three quotes from different sources in each firm. As is
typical, their chapter includes one table for each proposition (five in this
case; with from four to seven columns) plus an additional table documenting
evidence of performance (including multiple columns for different
quantitative assessments as well as quotes). Some writers might stop the
presentation of the data here, since the tabulations generally provide
unambiguous support for the propositions and extracts from the data on all
the cases.2 However, the authors generally elaborate on the findings by
offering more qualitative narrative examples of typically two high-
performing and two low-performing units that add depth to the information
provided in tables.
Eisenhardt and colleagues then always engage in an important final move
before closing the presentation of their propositions. This is to ask
themselves why the observed relationships might hold, that is, offering not
just evidence but explanation. Usually two or three reasons are offered for
each proposition. To present these, the authors draw on both the data
themselves and on prior theory and research in an attempt to deepen
understanding, and thus further enhance the credibility of the relationships
discovered. This may also be an occasion to reconcile the findings of the
research with prior literature (see, e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989b). The importance
of offering explanation is sometimes forgotten in qualitative research, but it
is particularly important, because it is here that a mere observed empirical
regularity is transformed into the beginnings of a theoretical contribution.
Extending this theme, a theory-building multiple case study will offer a
strong contribution to knowledge if its atomistic propositions can further be
integrated together into a coherent theoretical story that reaches beyond the
individual components. This final step is also important and can be quite
challenging because the need for novelty and credibility must also be
maintained. For example, after presenting a series of propositions about
factors that seemed associated with successful continuous innovation, it is at
this stage that Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) began to draw on complexity
theory as a metaphor to tie their findings together, noting that a persistent
theme in their work was the simultaneous need for structure but also for
flexibility.
Assessing the Template: Limitations and Variations

Overall, the ‘‘Eisenhardt method’’ has emerged as a very successful
approach to strategy process research as shown by the multiple publications
of the author and her collaborators. Although its logical and rhetorical
structure have not been quite so sharply replicated by other authors, many
have drawn inspiration from it while adapting it to their distinctive research
problems and contexts and mobilizing other sources of methodological
inspiration. For example, Zott and Huy (2007) used a comparative case
method with similar features to examine how more or less successful
entrepreneurial startups used symbolic management approaches, including a
focus on extreme cases to sharpen insights. In a prize-winning paper, Gilbert
(2005) used a similar method to explore patterns of inertia and modes of
overcoming them in the newspaper industry. Others have used multiple case
study methods that although not necessarily directly inspired by Eisen-
hardt’s work share methodological and rhetorical elements. For example,
Maitlis (2005) used multiple cases to generate a model of different forms of
leader and stakeholder sensemaking and their relationships with outcomes
using extensive tabulated data to add credibility to the relationships she
identified.
The template has however its boundary conditions and limitations. First,
while empirical processes are analyzed and interesting new process
‘‘constructs’’ emerge from these studies, the approach often tends to lead
to ‘‘variance’’ rather than ‘‘process’’ theorizations, that is, the emphasis in
most applications is on explaining variation in outcomes rather than on
understanding patterns of evolution over time (Mohr, 1982; Langley, 1999,
2009). Variance models have their own value but they compress time, limit
attention to temporal ordering, and assume that there is such a thing as a
final outcome, something that can be questionable in many cases. For
example, firm performance evolves over time – it is not fixed once and for
all. Performance ‘‘outcomes’’ are just way-stations in ongoing processes.
Indeed, they might sometimes better be seen as inputs to ongoing processes
since evaluations and interpretations of performance can have important
effects on subsequent actions (Langley, 2007).
There is however actually no inherent reason why multiple case analyses
cannot be used to develop process models and elements of ordering do
appear in a few studies (e.g., Bingham, 2009; Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1996).
Yet, when this is the objective, the logic is different from the dominant
pattern described above. Rather than seeking explanations for differences
between cases, a process theoretical analysis requires looking for regularities
in temporal patterns across cases. One study that does this rather well using
multiple cases is Ambos and Birkinshaw’s (2010) recent paper on the
developmental patterns and transitions of new science-based ventures. This
study indeed demonstrates how the outcomes of one phase of development

become stimuli for change for the next. Nevertheless, the retrospective
interview methodology used in multiple case studies often limits the depth of
evolutionary process detail that can be captured in these studies.
A second issue concerns the degree to which the findings emerging from
such studies are indeed as theoretically novel and surprising as often
claimed. However interesting the studies are, the subsequent capacity of the
authors to explain their results drawing on other literature suggests that the
rhetoric of surprise might sometimes be overemphasized. Several authors
have mitigated such claims while still legitimating their research efforts and
methods by referring to them as ‘‘theory elaboration’’ rather than ‘‘theory
development’’ (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999). In most cases, this would
seem to be a more realistic and yet valuable research enterprise, because it
involves explicitly building on previous work while developing it in new
directions.
Finally, as we noted at the beginning of this section, the Eisenhardt
multiple case method is positivist in orientation [or more precisely, what
Guba and Lincoln (1994) would label post-positivist]. It attempts to access
‘‘factual’’ data about what happened in a sample of relevant processes, and
it aims to develop generalizable nomothetic causal laws about objectively
observable phenomena in the real world. There are other ways of conceiving
the research enterprise with qualitative research, one of which we shall
consider in the next section.
The Gioia Method: Interpretive Modeling of Informant

Understandings over Time
Ever since Kathleen Eisenhardt published her first papers using the
distinctive comparative case method described above, the approach has
been both a source of admiration and emulation for many, yet a source of
some discomfort to certain other qualitative researchers who have seen in it
a distortion of the principles of the traditional interpretive case method that
emphasizes depth of understanding of unique situations (Dyer & Wilkins,
1991; Ahrens & Dent, 1998). Yet, cross-case comparative studies and single
case analyses have very different objectives and make different kinds of
theoretical contributions, valued for different reasons (Langley, 1999).
One group of scholars who appear to have perfected an approach for both
doing and successfully publishing single in-depth interpretive case studies is
Dennis Gioia and his colleagues and students. Their qualitative work has a
distinctive flavor that has given rise to numerous empirical studies,

beginning with a series on strategic sensemaking and sensegiving in the
1990s (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi,
1994; Gioia & Thomas, 1996) and following up with another impressive
series of papers on organizational identity change in different settings with
or by colleagues and students (e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2004; Corley, 2004;
Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007; Clark, Gioia, Ketchen, & Thomas, 2010; Gioia,
Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010). The paper by Corley and Gioia (2004)
dealing with identity ambiguity during a spinoff (based on Kevin Corley’s
Ph.D. thesis) received the ASQ Scholarly Contribution Award for the most
significant paper published five years earlier and has been frequently cited
not only as a strong contribution to organizational identity theory but also
as a methodological exemplar by other authors (e.g., Pratt, 2009; Rindova,
Dalpiaz, & Ravasi, 2011; Maguire & Phillips, 2008). From our personal
observations, it is frequently mentioned by reviewers. There is evidence that
we have here the elements of another emergent template.
Epistemological Foundations and Purposes: Toward Interpretive Understanding

Unlike Kathleen Eisenhardt, Dennis Gioia has never published a paper
explicitly describing step by step his methodology. However, in a reflexive
piece about his career as an organizational scholar, he noted:
In my research life, I am a grounded theorist. I pick people’s brains for a living, trying to
figure out how they make sense of their organizational experience. I then write
descriptive, analytical narratives that try to capture what I think they know. Those
narratives are usually written around salient themes that represent their experience to
other interested readers. (Gioia, 2004, p. 101)
This quotation neatly sums up the interpretive philosophy driving the

approach described here. The data Gioia and his colleagues are interested in
concern how people understand the changes they are both instigating and
dealing with, and how those meanings evolve. The key methodological
references the authors build on are the original grounded theorists (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The theoretical products they
generate are narratives that attempt at the same time to provide closeness to
so-called ‘‘first order’’ participant perspectives, and yet to add the authors’
‘‘second-order’’ interpretations of these perspectives distilled into a set of
inter-related overarching categories or themes that resonate with both
participants and readers, and yet communicate new insight. Of course, as in
the previous case, there remains a certain tension between novelty and
plausibility. We now briefly summarize the logic of the method and the
rhetoric of the writing that contribute to achieve both.
The Logic of the Method: Designing for Revelation, Richness, and Trustworthiness
When studying one case at a time in the hope of offering distinctive insights,
it would seem important to choose the right site. Yin (2009) suggests that
three different logics can be used to select sites for holistic case studies:
choose ‘‘critical’’ cases for the ‘‘test’’ of a particular theory, choose
‘‘extreme’’ cases where something exceptional seems to be occurring, or
choose ‘‘revelatory’’ cases that offer high potential for developing new
insight into an understudied phenomenon. Gioia and colleagues’ recent
contributions seem to have been designed to build successively on a
developing body of cognitively oriented theories of sensemaking and
identity change, each study adding new identity-critical situations in a kind
of sequential revelatory case logic. For example, while Corley and Gioia
(2004) examined the dynamics of identity change during a spinoff, Nag et al.
(2007) looked at identity change in the context of the addition of new forms
of knowledge, Clark et al. (2010) focused on evolving identity dynamics
during a merger, and Gioia et al.’s (2010) study investigated the emergence
of identity in a new organization. The timing of these studies has been such
that although others have worked in the area organizational identity, each
individual study was able to lay claim to a novel context and related set of
insights and the whole series of studies takes on a programmatic character.
Beyond the technical criterion of selecting cases for their revelatory
potential, in-depth ethnographic studies of change require organizations
that provide good access to ensure data richness. Thus, Gioia and colleagues
have not hesitated to study organizations close to home: ‘‘No organization
is more salient or more important to me than my own organization, so that
helps to explain why I sometimes study my own university’’ (Gioia, 2004, p.
102). For several articles, Gioia and colleagues have also developed a rather
innovative insider-outsider perspective that truly optimizes access to
richness, in which one member of the research team has been an active
participant in the events studied (e.g., Gioia et al., 1994, 2010; Gioia &
Chittipeddi, 1991). The authors argue that the combination of insider and
outsider perspectives both enriches the research and can contribute to its
trustworthiness as long as precautions are taken to ensure confidentiality
and independence (Gioia et al., 2010). In terms of data collection more
generally, the researchers have made extensive use of interviews, often
carried out in multiple rounds and at multiple levels and positions, but also
of observational data (Clark et al., 2010; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Corley
& Gioia, 2004).
Following Strauss and Corbin (1990), the methods sections of these
articles generally describe a highly disciplined coding and analysis process
whose central artifact, a hierarchical ‘‘data structure’’ is presented as a key
output of the research, usually in the form of a horizontal tree-shaped
figure (see, e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2004, p. 184). To arrive at this, the authors
first develop in vivo codes through ‘‘open coding’’ of data extracts using
the words of participants, and then group these into ‘‘first order’’
(participant-based) concepts through ‘‘constant comparison’’ (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990) between different extracts. Linkages between first-order
concepts are then sought through ‘‘axial coding’’ leading to so-called
second-order themes situated at a higher level of abstraction. Through
further comparisons of the data, the researchers generally arrive at a
limited number of ‘‘aggregate dimensions’’ or ‘‘core categories’’ that serve
to summarize the elements of an emerging theoretical model. For example,
the ideas of ‘‘sensemaking’’ and ‘‘sensegiving’’ emerged as the key
explanatory concepts from the study of the initiation of strategic change
in a university (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991); the notion of ‘‘identity
ambiguity’’ along with its triggers and consequences emerged as central in
the study of identity change following a corporate spinoff (Corley & Gioia,
2004). Each of these concepts is linked to others and underpinned by the
first-order and second-order themes that successively and in tree-like
fashion gave rise to it. All this takes place iteratively, with constant moving
back and forth between codes and data, and with emerging ideas leading to
additional data collection to fill out the framework as the research
progresses. Instead of terms like validity and reliability, the authors use
Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) set of criteria for naturalistic inquiry to assess
the quality of their research method. In particular, their claims for the
‘‘trustworthiness’’ of their data are supported by the involvement of
multiple researchers and by member-checking (i.e., gaining feedback from
insiders on emerging interpretations).
Again, the simple description of the design and procedures does not do
justice to the uncertainties involved in generating these outputs. Finding the
twist that will pull all the ideas together is of course necessarily a creative
act. As Suddaby (2006) has noted, grounded theory is not easy, although
when examining its products, it sometimes looks easy, since at least in the
case of these researchers, the emerging models tend to be neatly
parsimonious despite the mass of data that generated them. This brings us
to the question of rhetoric.
Rhetoric of the Writing: Establishing the Gap, ‘‘Distilling the Essence,’’

Elaborating the Story
My awareness of my cognitive limitations helps me empathize with the poor reader
trying to understand the point(s) I am trying to make in a given article. For that reason, I
work hard at trying to distil findings to their essences and to communicate them in
simple compelling ways. Although I once disdained it, I have developed a great
appreciation for ‘‘sound-bite’’ research reporting. (y) A well-constructed sound-bite has
a certain memorability about it-what I like to call a ‘‘cognitive stickiness’’ that allows
readers to remember the most important points you are trying to make. (Gioia, 2004)
The rhetorical structure of the articles by Gioia and colleagues that we

have reviewed here is perhaps not as uniform as that described above for
Eisenhardt and colleagues’ work. However, there are some very instructive
commonalities that are worthy of note. First, the positioning of the
contribution is more often in the nature of establishing a gap in
understanding of important processes than of establishing a contradiction
with previous research as we saw above.
However, perhaps the most striking and powerful rhetorical pattern lies in
the presentation of the findings. This begins with the overall ‘‘data
structure’’ diagram we described in the previous section. For example,
Corley and Gioia’s (2004) data structure diagram has 24 ‘‘first-order’’
concepts grouped into 9 ‘‘second order themes,’’ which are in turn grouped
again into three ‘‘aggregate dimensions’’ that form the core of the
theoretical contribution. Gioia et al.’s (2010) study of the creation of a
new identity in a university department has 16 ‘‘first order categories’’
grouped into 8 ‘‘second order themes.’’ In both these papers and others,
another figure that shows how the second order themes are related with each
other over time is also provided. These figures, accompanied by a short
verbal description, provide an upfront distillation of the paper’s central
message (see Gioia’s remarks at the beginning of this section).
All that remains then is to elaborate on each of the main themes. This is
done in two ways that together provide compelling support for the emerging
model. First each of the themes is elaborated as part of a narrative account
in the body of the paper, with multiple references to specific incidents and
quotations from informants or documents. Second, additional quotations
for each theme are displayed in a large accompanying table (with very little
overlap in content with the textual narrative). This data presentation
strategy, very obvious in the Corley and Gioia (2004) paper and followed
through in subsequent writings, builds strong credibility around the
findings. In a recent Academy of Management Journal editorial, Pratt
(2009) noted the value of this approach, suggesting that writers might keep
their most striking ‘‘power quotes’’ (Gioia’s sound-bites?) for the narrative,
but place additional ‘‘proof quotes’’ in tables to solidify their arguments.
Finally, after the presentation of the findings, the authors return to a
description of the overall model, and elaborate on the contribution of the
paper, often though not always in a series of propositions.
Assessing the Template: Limitations and Variations

Again, the ‘‘Gioia method’’ has been very successful on its own terms in
generating knowledge about strategic and identity change in various
situations. Several of its elements have also been taken up by others,
especially but not only by researchers in the area of organizational identity.
Specifically, the authors’ approach to summarizing the derivation of their
emergent grounded conceptual framework in the form of a data structure
diagram has become increasingly common. For example, Maguire and
Phillips (2008) used this device in a study of identity change at Citigroup,
Anand et al. (2007) used it for a study of the development of new practices in
consulting firms, and Rindova et al. (2011) used it in their study of Alessi’s
incorporation of new cultural resources into their strategy.
This template has limitations too. One potential limitation that seems,
however, not to have hindered these researchers concerns the challenge of
convincing readers about the transferability and relevance of the findings
given the propensity to study single cases. In interpretive research, it is
argued that it is the depth of contextual detail in a case study that provides
the understanding necessary for a reader to judge whether the theoretical
elements might apply to their own situation. Also, one might expect that
cases (of for example mergers) might have certain generic qualities that
could make some types of findings relevant almost anywhere. And yet,
working with a single idiographic case considered holistically is, in our own
experience, often more challenging than working with some form of
comparative design where similarities and differences more naturally
stimulate theorization (Langley, 1999). With a single case, it is easy to fall
into the trap of having nothing but a boring sequential narrative to tell, with
no insightful plot or any hope of catching readers’ minds and imaginations
with the ‘‘cognitive stickiness’’ that Gioia (2004) was referring to. The ability
to generate theoretical insights that have obvious value beyond the specific
context of their development is a crucial skill for this type of research.
Finally, although the Gioia method does lead to process models of how
people make sense over time, these models sometimes seem to describe
phenomena at rather a high level of aggregation (as described in the second-
order themes) so that a complete understanding of how and why things
occur in the everyday from one moment to the next is to a degree glossed
over. This may be partly a consequence of the grounded theory
methodology where the coding and categorizing process may generate a
certain decontextualization; to achieve generality, the chaining and interplay
of particular events may sometimes become lost in this process. In addition,
despite their interpretive roots, these studies usually produce singular
narratives where differences in perspective are subsumed as ‘‘tensions’’ but
are not elaborated in depth (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007). As we shall see in
the next section, there may be other ways of approaching strategy processes
that get closer to everyday strategic practices and the way in which they are
reproduced and adapted and that take into account multiple perspectives.
TWO TURNS
The two approaches to qualitative analysis of strategy process phenomena

described above are not of course the only ones. However, we chose to
present them because they are not only powerful and useful but also
representative of the most common sets of epistemological assumptions,
methodological toolkits, and rhetorical frames supporting qualitative
research in this field. In the second part of this chapter, we move toward
some more recent and less traditional approaches to qualitative studies in
strategy and management. These approaches are broader and less codified
than the templates described above, so our mode of presentation will be
somewhat different. However, they are currently generating a great deal of
interest. Each has different epistemological assumptions, suggests different
methodologies, and may involve different styles of writing. We begin by
focusing on the ‘‘practice turn’’ and then move on to the ‘‘discursive turn’’
drawing on selected methodological texts and empirical exemplars in each
case (for a summary of this discussion, see Table 2).
The Practice Turn: Studying Strategy as a Social Practice
Epistemological Foundations and Empirical Exemplars

The practice turn in strategy research, or the ‘‘strategy as practice’’ perspective
(Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski, 2005; Johnson, Langley, Melin, & Whittington,
2007) has developed considerable momentum in recent years building on an
interest in practice-based studies that has spread from philosophy and
sociology (Schatzki, Knorr Cetina, & Von Savigny, 2001; Reckwitz, 2002;
Table 2. Two ‘‘Turns’’ in Qualitative Research on Strategy

and Management.
‘‘Strategy as Practice’’ ‘‘Strategy as Discourse’’
Empirical focus The ‘‘doing’’ of strategy: Activities of Language and strategy: How
strategy practitioners and discourses are shaped and shape
regularities emerging from or understandings of strategy and
underlying them organizational direction
Foundational Whittington (2006, 2007), Phillips et al. (2008), Vaara (2010),
references Jarzabkowski (2004), Johnson Phillips and Hardy (2002), Vaara
et al. (2007), Rasche and Chia and Tienari (2004)
(2009), Feldman and Orlikowski
(forthcoming)
Epistemological Practices as constitutive of social Social world created and maintained
foundations and world; diverse theoretical roots but through discourse; Key elements:
key theoretical some key common elements:
elements – Knowledge as embedded in – Hermeneutic: focus on meaning
practices – Critical: revealing politics and
– Socio-material nature of practice power
– Recursivity of practices – Interdiscursive: focus on
interplay among discourses at
multiple levels
Empirical Rouleau (2005), Kaplan 2011, Heracleous and Barrett (2001),
exemplars Jarzabkowski (2008) Vaara and Monin (2010)
Methodological – Ethnographic observation to – Detailed analyses of content of
and rhetorical detect elements of practice (e.g., texts (e.g., themes, structure,
elements implicit knowledge; etc.)
sociomateriality) not usually – Need for ethnographic or
consciously perceived process data on context (writers,
– Need for in-depth longitudinal readers, intentions, events,
studies to capture recursivity of practices surrounding text)
practices – Longitudinal data to capture
– Writing around detailed vignettes temporality
to reveal underlying dynamics – Writing including both detailed
– Use of temporal bracketing to analysis of text and as well as data
structure recursive analysis on how texts are used in context
Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1977) into various subfields of organization theory

and management including strategy (Feldman & Orlikowski, forthcoming;
Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks & Yanow, 2009; Corradi, Gherardi, &
Verzelloni, 2010). Specifically, scholars of strategy as practice argue that
rather than being seen as something that organizations have, strategy should
be viewed as ‘‘something people do’’ (Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski,

Balogun, & Seidl, 2007). Practice thinking thus begins with an empirical focus
on activity, and in this case with the concrete micro-level activities that
strategy practitioners, broadly defined, engage in, and with the regularities
constituted and reproduced by these activities.
For some, practice thinking ends where it begins: the ‘‘doing of strategy’’
is an interesting empirical phenomenon that can be and indeed has been
studied in a variety of different ways using methods that are often not all
that different from those we described earlier. Indeed, the studies of
Eisenhardt (1989b) on fast decision making and Gioia and Chittipeddi
(1991) on sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change can be seen as
studies of strategy as practice in that sense (Johnson et al., 2007). This
empirically driven notion of practice has renewed interest in the human and
practical elements of strategy making, giving rise to some innovative and
interesting studies [e.g., Johnson, Prashantham, Floyd, and Bourque’s
(2010) multiple case studies of success and failure in strategy workshops
drawing on ritual theory; Maitlis and Lawrence’s (2003) single case study of
strategy failure; Balogun and Johnson’s (2004) interpretive study of the role
of middle-manager sensemaking in strategic change using diaries and focus
groups].
However, the notion of strategy as practice can become deeper and more
distinctive if the notion of practice is taken to refer not just to an empirical
interest in the doing of strategy but to include a commitment to theories of
social practice, and eventually to a practice-based ontology in which
‘‘practices are understood to be the primary building blocks of social
reality’’ (Feldman & Orlikowski, forthcoming, p. 3; Schatzki et al., 2001).
This point has been argued in different ways by both proponents
(Whittington, 2007; Rasche & Chia, 2009) and critics (Chia & MacKay,
2007; Carter, Clegg, & Kornberger, 2008; Corradi et al., 2010) of the
strategy as practice perspective. However, what exactly this means is
obscured by the fact that, as Miettinen et al. (2009, p. 1312) note, ‘‘social
practice theory is not a unified theory, but rather a collection of authors and
approaches interested in studying or theorizing practice, each of whom has
his or her own distinctive vocabulary’’ (see also Corradi et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, some common features of practice theorizing can be identified
(Miettinen et al., 2009; Rasche & Chia, 2009; Feldman & Orlikowski,
forthcoming) and we will draw on three of these to illustrate the implications
for empirical research, using exemplars for each.
First, practice theorizing emphasizes the way in which knowledge is

embedded in and regenerated through practical activity (Cook & Brown,
1999; Gherardi, 2006). Thus when individuals engage in practices, they draw
on unconscious tacit understandings of how to ‘‘go on’’ in specific situations
that have been learned over time and that are enacted collectively (Rasche &
Chia, 2009). From this perspective, the knowledge of how strategy or indeed
any practical activity is accomplished may not be easily available only from
asking questions in interviews, the dominant methodology in qualitative
studies of strategy and management. Rather, it is implicit in what people do
in specific situations. To appreciate and to a degree capture this form of
knowledge requires close ethnographic observation, and sensitivity not just
to surface activity but to the skills and competencies that underlie it
(Rasche & Chia, 2009). Rouleau’s (2005) study of everyday sensemaking
and sensegiving practices illustrates this focus. Specifically, through a fine-
grained analysis of incidents and conversations observed among middle
managers and clients in a clothing firm, Rouleau (2005) shows how enacting
a new strategy in the everyday involves adjusting stories to the people
addressed (‘‘translating the new orientation’’), drawing on broad cultural
repertoires associated with gender and ethnic origin (‘‘overcoding the
strategy’’), mobilizing space, the body and displayed emotions to channel
attention (‘‘disciplining the client’’) and framing legitimate reasons for
strategic change (‘‘justifying the change’’). All these micro-practices and
their embedded skills appear to be enacted subtly, smoothly, and naturally
with little readily apparent conscious reflection.
A second common tenet of practice theory is that material objects ranging
from sophisticated technologies to the everyday tools of living are deeply
intertwined in everyday practices, mediating how and what is accomplished
(Latour, 2005). Practices are thus often qualified as ‘‘socio-material’’ to
encompass the notion of the inseparability of human and nonhuman agency
(Feldman & Orlikowski, forthcoming). This too has implications for
research, again suggesting a need for fine-grained attention to how material
elements intervene within the context of practice. An interesting recent
ethnographic study by Kaplan (2011) reveals how PowerPoint technology is
deeply implicated in the ways in which strategic decisions are constructed.
Through the fine analysis of strategy making negotiations, Kaplan shows
how the materiality, mutability, modularity and digitality of PowerPoint
slides contributes to enabling both collaboration among people holding
different perspectives (through information sharing and idea generation),
but also to what she calls ‘‘cartography’’ – the political effort to pin down
and ‘‘draw boundaries around the scope of the strategy’’ (Kaplan, 2011,
p. 21) by selective inclusion of information and actors manifested materially
in the slides themselves and in the way in which they are diffused and
presented.
Finally, a third important notion in practice theory is the idea that
practices are recursive (Feldman & Orlikowski, forthcoming; Jarzabkowski,
2004). Ongoing activity leads to the stabilization and reification of social
orders or social structures that become resources for subsequent activity.
For example, in Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration, social structures
constituted through practice include power dependencies (‘‘structures of
domination’’), shared meanings or interpretive schemes (‘‘structures of
signification’’), and norms (‘‘structures of legitimation’’). Ongoing activities
are constrained and enabled by these social structures, but they are
simultaneously the means by which they are produced and reproduced over
time. The mutually constitutive nature of structure and agency implicit in
these theories of practice can be hard to pin down in empirical research and
detailed ethnographic observation again seems desirable. In addition
however, the ability to capture the recursive nature of practices requires
fairly long time frames. For example, in a seven-year study of university
strategy making, Jarzabkowski (2008) used a structuration theory frame-
work to examine how strategizing iteratively involved ad hoc decisions
about specific strategies (interactive strategizing), the enactment of
embedded routines and structures that generated decisions while reprodu-
cing those routines (procedural strategizing), and activity that creating new
routines and structures that would serve to embed later decisions
(integrative strategizing).
Doing and Writing Research from the Practice Turn

As we have suggested above, studying strategy from the perspective of the
practice turn often requires deeper and closer contact with the doing of strategy
than is often seen in other approaches. Thus, ethnography has been a favored
research method because it enables researchers to capture what participants
themselves are unable to articulate, at least not as well (Rouleau, 2005; Rasche &
Chia, 2009) and to physically see how material objects, the body, space, and time
are mobilized within practices (Rouleau, 2005; Kaplan, 2011). For example,
strategy as practice scholars have begun to use video ethnography and
photographs to capture systematically what is happening beyond the merely
verbal component of strategic practices (Molloy & Whittington, 2005; Liu &
Maitlis, 2010). In addition, longitudinal observations over long time periods are
required to capture the recursive nature of practices as in Jarzabkowski’s (2008)

seven-year study.
Clearly however, such work generates immense databases of disparate
kinds of information, and the researcher is faced with another complex task
in communicating it in the context of journal articles. Without suggesting
that these are the only ways of analyzing and communicating insight about
practice, we observe two interesting ways in which authors reveal their
findings that are somewhat different from those described earlier. The first is
particularly evident in the Rouleau (2005) and Kaplan (2011) articles and
involves the detailed elaboration and unfurling of highly specific but
powerfully illustrative vignettes. For example, Rouleau’s (2005) ethno-
graphic study took place over six months with four days per week of
presence on the site. However, she uses six small vignettes (three routines
and three conversations) to build her in-depth analysis of the practices. She
draws an interesting analogy between her own approach and that of the
natural scientist when she says, ‘‘Just as using a microscope helps
understanding of the whole through its tiny parts, routines and conversa-
tions offer an interesting insight to examine strategic change’’ (p. 1419). As
each of the microscopic samples reveals similar underlying phenomena
whose workings are finely traced out, cumulative understanding becomes
increasingly layered and credible. Similarly, Kaplan undertook an 18-month
ethnography. However, her analysis draws intensively on two sequences of
PowerPoint-based negotiations with detailed illustrations and a complex
table in which modifications over time are illustrated. The explicit showing
of how the practices she is describing are manifested in every element of
these concrete sequences adds to the credibility of her theoretical insights.
A second analytical and rhetorical device that has been useful in practice-
based studies draws on Barley’s (1986, p. 82) sawtooth representation of the
recursive nature of actions and institutions (or structures) where the realm
of action and institution are shown as horizontal parallel lines that interact
(see also Barley & Tolbert, 1997). In this representation, institutions are
shown as directly influencing the practices carried out in the action realm.
Each iteration of a practice implies its recursive reproduction or adaptation.
Over time, ad hoc adaptations progressively cumulate and eventually result
in sharper shifts in the institutional frame itself. This classic sawtooth model
is used by Jarzabkowski (2008) in her study of strategizing in universities, by
Howard-Grenville (2007) in her study of shifts in issue-selling practices in a
chip-making company, and by Rerup and Feldman (2011) in their study of
evolution in interpretive schemes in a research unit. The framework provides
a heuristic for breaking down analysis into successive temporal brackets
(Langley, 1999, p. 703) to explicitly examine how iterative actions taken

during one period lead over time to changes in the context that will affect
action in subsequent periods.
Assessing the Turn: Limitations and Variations

The practice turn offers potential to understand the doing of strategy and
management rather differently, throwing light on its implicit, sociomaterial
and recursive nature, something that is largely absent in the two templates we
presented earlier. The practice turn also has a natural affinity for qualitative
and ethnographic research methods because of its empirical focus on the
situated and particular. As Feldman and Orlikowski (forthcoming) note,
however, this does not mean that practice theorizing has no generality.
Rather, strong practice-based studies like those mentioned above generate
new concepts and understandings that have much broader relevance. In a
striking example of this potential, Feldman’s ethnographic study of practices
in a university housing department generated broadly applicable theories of
the performative and ostensive aspects of routines (Feldman, 2000) as well as
the development of the notion of ‘‘resourcing’’ (Feldman, 2004). Both these
ideas have many interesting applications far beyond the original context of
their production, and more particularly in the area of strategy.
The key limitation of the practice turn in strategy may be that as some
critics have suggested (Chia & MacKay, 2007; Carter et al., 2008), it is not
quite yet a ‘‘turn’’ in the epistemological sense. ‘‘Strategy as practice’’ is
more in the nature of an ‘‘umbrella’’ concept (Corradi et al., 2010) that
enables the grouping together of a community of people interested in
similar empirical phenomena and drawing on a loose collection of
theoretical lenses that have something to do with practice. So far, this
seems to be leading to a renewal and enrichment of qualitative methodology
in strategy and management, a positive trend it seems to us. As the
perspective develops through its own empirical research practice, its
theoretical reach will no doubt recursively shift and hopefully deepen. The
emphasis on practice has also in many ways fed into the second turn we
examine here.
The Discursive Turn: Studying Strategy as Discourse
Epistemological Foundations and Empirical Exemplars

As the result of a more general ‘‘linguistic turn’’ in organization studies
(Alvesson & Karreman, 2000), and building on the progression of
socioconstructivist epistemologies inspired by Berger and Luckmann (1967),

discursive approaches have become increasingly prevalent in organization
and management research (Phillips, Sewell, & Jaynes, 2008; Vaara, 2010). In
particular, a wide variety of linguistic approaches to strategy have been
proposed varying from critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Phillips et al., 2008)
to narrative analysis (Barry & Elmes, 1997) to conversation analysis (Samra-
Fredericks, 2003). In this section, we will focus more particularly on
exemplars of discursive approaches used to study multi-level strategy
processes over time.
One of the most widely shared definitions of discourse was offered by
Parker (1992) for whom discourse does not refer simply to text, but is a set
of texts and of the practices related to their production, dissemination, and
reception. Texts can take on different forms: written, spoken, images,
symbols, and other artifacts (Grant, Keenoy, & Oswick, 1998). Discourse
analysis involves examining how discourses shape understandings of social
reality, and how they are in turn shaped through discursive practices
including the production, distribution, transformation, movement, and
interpretation of texts. It aims to understand how social phenomena are
produced or constructed and maintained through time (Phillips & Hardy,
2002). Thus, there are clear links between this approach and the practice-
based approach described in the previous section. Paralleling the traditional
themes of strategy research, discourse studies in strategy ‘‘all share an
interest in exploring how organizations, industries and their environment
are created and maintained through discourse’’ (Phillips et al., 2008, p. 770).
As in the case of practice studies, there is no strong coherence among
discursive approaches, but three main concerns are featured in this type of
research that we identify as hermeneutic, critical and interdiscursive. The
hermeneutic dimension is related to the need to understand how certain
meanings are discursively constructed and interpreted and how they evolve
over time (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001). Discourse studies also share a
critical concern that calls for a multidimensional or intertextual analysis of
discourse to bridge micro, meso, and meta levels of analysis and to critically
examine the shaping of various organizational processes (Phillips et al.,
2008; Vaara, 2010). Finally, while some discourse analyses tend to be static
focusing on specific documents or narratives, as noted by Vaara (2010), the
greatest potential of discursive approaches for strategy comes from analyses
of the interplay of discourses over time and across multiple levels, what he
labels ‘‘interdiscursivity.’’ This could involve for example looking at how
macro-level discourses about the nature of strategy are taken up in specific
organizations (Mantere & Vaara, 2008), how multiple discourses interact
and conflict (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001), or how dominant discourses

come to emerge or are contested over time (Ezzamel & Willmott, 2008).
Discursive approaches can therefore offer a new way of introducing
complexity into the study of strategic processes by examining their
nonlinearity, their linguistic nature, and the various forms of their internal
dynamics (Vaara, 2010).
The two exemplars of discourse studies we chose to present in this chapter
represent two very different ways of studying strategy processes from a
discursive standpoint. The first by Heracleous and Barrett (2001) uses
discourse analysis with a primarily hermeneutic concern. It examines
organizational change from a discursive perspective through an exploration
of the implementation process of a risk-placing support system in the
London Insurance Market over a five-year period. The paper, one of the
first of its nature to be published in the Academy of Management Journal,
makes a strong case for a structurationist conceptualization of discourse as
made up of both deep meaning structures and surface communicative
actions and defends this conceptualization as a means of reconciling the
social dualisms of structure and action (Giddens, 1984). Again the linkage
with the previous perspective is clear, although the emphasis here is clearly
on communicative actions and their underlying meaning, rather than on
practices.
The paper is a longitudinal (five-year) investigation of how a change
process (the implementation of a new IT system) is shaped by the discourses
of different stakeholders over time. It is both an inquiry into the nature of
the discourse employed by various stakeholders and an inquiry into its role
in shaping the change process. Interestingly, a combined discourse analysis
method, termed ‘‘Rhetorical-Hermeneutic’’ by the authors, was used and
constitutes an original way of bridging between multiple levels of analysis:
the deep discursive structure level, the surface communicative action level
and the contextual level through interpretive schemes that are used as
modalities that mediate between the two discursive levels. This methodo-
logical bridging apparatus generated a systematic processual analysis that
tracks shifts and transformations in the change process over time. The study
shows how the deep structures of discourse act as stable patterns that shape
action in various ways for different stakeholders through contextual
elements of interpretation. Its approach is ‘‘interdiscursive’’ in that it
examines the struggles among alternate meanings inherent in stakeholder’s
communicative actions.
The second article by Vaara and Monin (2010) is a study of a process of
discursive legitimation in a post-merger situation using a multimethod
critical approach. The paper also shows the recursivity of discourse and
action in that the discursive legitimation process unfolds by simultaneously
shaping and being shaped by organizational action. The interesting aspect of
the process as described in the paper is how a key discursive ‘‘device’’ of
justification, termed ‘‘theranostics’’ (a combination of the two strategic
resources of the merging entities, respectively ‘‘therapy’’ and ‘‘diagnostics’’)
was taken up and echoed in media discourse, creating enthusiasm around
this concept not only in the business press but by ricochet within the firm
itself as its members came increasingly to believe it, and indeed attempted to
enact it despite its origin as a useful ‘‘story’’ developed to legitimate a
merger that had been promulgated for other reasons. The study illustrates
the potentially performative nature of discourse (producing that of which it
speaks) and its role in the merger outcome. It shows the process of
transformation of theranostics from a discursive resource of legitimation
into a source of unrealistic expectations, as the ideas underlying it ultimately
proved to be illusory.
In their paper, Vaara and Monin (2010) interestingly also echo themes
like sensemaking, sensegiving, or sensehiding often examined by others
through the ‘‘Gioia method,’’ but they analyse them using a discursive
approach that is based on a multidimensional conception of discourse as
made up of texts but also of a set of material actions that transform or are
transformed by it.
Doing and Writing Research from the Discursive Turn

Aside from the two examples of published research from a discursive
perspective described above, it is important to note that a large number of
studies have been using this perspective in recent management research. In
their recent review of and call for applying CDA to strategy research,
Phillips et al. (2008) show the increase in the number of published papers
including CDA since 1995, reaching around 140 in 2005. Although a wide
range of methodologies can be found under the discourse analysis umbrella,
three main elements structure the discursive approach methodologically in
relation to studying processes: the multiple forms of text(s), the crucial role
of context, and the temporality of discourse.
First, the textual dimension of discourse analysis is of course
fundamental since it is mainly through texts in their various forms that
any discursive work can be done. The juxtaposition of written, spoken and
other symbolic textual devices characterizes the aim of discursive
approaches to accentuate in more depth the internal circumvolutions of
process and its interdiscursive nature. The studies we describe each contain
specific ways of systematically analyzing the content of texts, for example,

looking at ‘‘ethymeme components’’ or rhetorical structures in the texts for
Heracleous and Barrett (2001) and looking at legitimation strategies
inherent in the texts for Vaara and Monin (2010). Other kinds of textual
analysis methods such as conversation analysis or narrative analysis would
be possible. However, it is not only the text as a micro analytical device
that is of interest here but texts as multiple forms of discursive
manifestations embodied in their practices of production, dissemination
and consumption that are at the heart of this relatively new methodological
approach.
It is important to note here the differences in the way textual data
(interviews, documents, and other materials) are treated in this perspective
as compared with the approaches we presented in the first half of this
chapter. The Eisenhardt method involves analyzing such data to establish
facts while the Gioia method would treat the same data as interpretations.
In the discursive approach, texts are discourses that are analyzed not only
for what they say but for what they do: for example, the meanings they
construct, reproduce, contest or maintain, the effects they have and the
precise means by which these effects are achieved (Vaara, 2010). These
effects may include the propagation of managerial concepts (e.g.,
‘‘theranostics’’; strategy itself), the transformation of institutional fields
(Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005) or the reproduction of power relations
(Knights & Morgan, 1991; Ezzamel & Willmott, 2008), with critical
researchers being particularly concerned with revealing the latter.
Second, in almost all the studies that use a discursive approach to
understand organizational processes, the notion of context is presented as
the stepping stone upon which a strong analysis should be built. No ‘‘thick
description’’ is possible without it and no sense of unfolding or of
temporality can be conveyed if context is not addressed. For example, in
Heracleous and Barrett’s study (2001), context is taken into account
through the collection of ethnographic data that is used in conjunction with
the textual data in the analysis of the change process. In a constant
hermeneutic interplay between texts and discourses defined as ‘‘constituted
of the totality of single texts’’ (p. 762), the analysis illustrates the importance
of their ‘‘texts-in-context’’ approach (interviews, written texts, ethnographic
data) to understand the temporal unfolding of the process. Similarly, in
recent research by Vaara and his colleagues, (e.g., Vaara, Kleymann, &
Seristö, 2004; Vaara & Monin, 2010; Mantere & Vaara, 2008), context is
always given a preponderant role in explaining the dynamics of the
processes under examination. Elements of context are drawn from data
collected during lengthy contact with the studied organizations and are
included in the narrative constructions around the unfolding of the
examined processes. Generally, context gives the necessary depth and
grounding to studies that move from the meso to the micro levels of
analysis.
Finally, temporality is one of the main issues in studying processes and it
seems that recent discursive approaches with their multidimensional and
multilevel methodological choices are tackling the temporality issue in an
interestingly relevant manner. Echoing the methodological opening-up to
multiple dimensions, the conceptualization of temporality is broader here
than in the more traditional process research studies. The temporality
revealed in these studies is not simply a linear progression through time but
a dynamic interdiscursive process that evolves in sinuous, nonlinear ways.
For example, in the Heracleous and Barrett (2001) study, temporality is
crucial and is shown through the description of the evolution of both levels
of discourse and their mutual structuring broken down into distinct phases
of evolution. In their description of the legitimation process of a merger,
Vaara and Monin (2010)’s conception of temporality is anchored within the
particular interpretive context of individuals in the two merging organiza-
tions. Temporality becomes a relative notion that might have to be taken
into account in a different way in different contexts and for different
organizational actors.
Assessing the Turn: Limitations and Variations

Like its main proponents (Phillips et al., 2008; Vaara, 2010), we believe that
the discursive turn offers potential to open up research on strategy
processes, through a more performative conception of discourse, to a
multidimensional examination of organizational processes. In its critical
manifestation, the discursive turn also draws attention to the ways in which
realities that favor certain groups over others are socially constructed but
also to how those relations might be thought of differently (Ezzamel &
Willmott, 2008; Mantere & Vaara, 2008).
Nevertheless, we see several ways in which discursive studies might be
developed and improved. First, some of the earlier difficulties associated
with publishing discourse-based studies in major journals were perhaps
associated with the relatively opaque nature of some of their analyses.
Recent work including the studies by Heracleous and Barrett (2001) (see
also Heracleous, 2006), by Vaara and colleagues (see also Vaara & Tienari,
2004; Mantere & Vaara, 2008) and by Phillips and Hardy (2002) have begun
to render the methods more accessible, providing more methodological
detail and worked examples to build confidence in and understanding of

findings that this type of analysis can generate.
Second, greater emphasis could be placed on the pragmatic aspects of
discourse studies in strategy research to enable them to reach a wider
audience. An understanding of the way in which discursive practices
contribute to defining the realities organizations live with ought to have
serious practical implications, but these have not necessarily been strongly
emphasized. As with any academic enterprise, there is a risk of becoming
too self-referential (Luhmann, 1995), and this arises particularly with
approaches that build on their own specialized methodological language.
Put differently, the knowledge generated by the more traditional templates
has perhaps in the past been a little easier to consume.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has considered four different ways in which qualitative

research can contribute to developing valuable knowledge about strategy
processes. By describing two somewhat institutionalized approaches to
conceptualizing qualitative research and of writing qualitative articles (the
two ‘‘templates’’), we illustrate some ways in which positivist and
interpretive conceptions of reality and knowledge development have been
successfully mobilized to generate insight. We have also shown how these
approaches achieve their persuasive effects by examining not only the logic
behind the methods used, but also by revealing the related rhetorical moves
underlying their presentation and argumentation.
Second, we attempted to move beyond the positivist and interpretive
frames reflected in the two more traditional templates to consider alternative
ways in which qualitative data might be used to throw light on strategic
management processes. Drawing on a number of illustrative exemplars, we
showed the potential for the practice and discursive turns in strategy research
to offer important and original ways of seeing these processes. From these
perspectives, qualitative data is not simply something that can be valuable in
the ‘‘early stages’’ of research as is often assumed in the positivist paradigm,
but something that is inherent to the ability to uncover certain types of
knowledge about organizational phenomena, for example, knowledge that is
embedded in strategic practices or that is itself constructed through language.
We hope that the ideas presented in this chapter will encourage
researchers interested in using qualitative research methods to examine the
approaches presented here for themselves, perhaps by delving into some of
the exemplars we identified. We also hope that through their own reading
and research, they might discover, articulate and/or invent others. There is,
fortunately, still ample room for innovation and creativity in the area of
qualitative research on strategy and management.
NOTES
1. We thank Dennis Gioia for an instructive telephone conversation about his
approach to qualitative research.
2. Note that while Eisenhardt (1989a) indicated that the data do not have to
perfectly fit the proposed model, in most published papers, it is hard to observe
any lack of fit in the tabulated evidence that almost always exhibits perfect
correlation.
REFERENCES
Ahrens, T., & Dent, J. F. (1998). Accounting and organizations. Journal of Management
Accounting Research, 10(1), 1–39.
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations
through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–1149.
Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). How do ventures evolve? An inductive
study of archetype change in science-based ventures. Organization Science, 21(6),
1125–1140.
Anand, N., Gardner, H., & Morris, T. (2007). Knowledge-based innovation: Emergence and
embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(2), 406–428.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of
CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 31, 78–108.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links
between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.
Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse.
Academy of Management Review, 2, 429–452.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday
Anchor.
Bingham, C. B. (2009). Oscillating improvisation: How entrepreneurial firms create success in
foreign market entries over time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 321–345.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
Buchanan, D., & Dawson, P. (2007). Discourse and audience: Organizational change as a multi-
story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 669–686.
Carter, C., Clegg, S. R., & Kornberger, M. (2008). Strategy as practice? Strategic Organization,
6(1), 83–99.
Chia, R., & MacKay, B. (2007). Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-
as-practice perspective: Discovering strategy in the logic of practice. Human Relations,
60(1), 217–242.
Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Transitional identity as a
facilitator of organizational identity change in a merger. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 55, 397–438.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4),
381–400.
Corley, K. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences
in perceptions of organizational identity and change. Human Relations, 57(9), 1145–1177.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate
spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.
Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the
bandwagon of practice studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), 265–283.
Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613–619.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 543–576.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high
velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal,
31(4), 737–770.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2008). Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: A supplement to
rationalist and interpretive accounts. Organization Studies, 29, 191–217.
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization
Science, 11(6), 611–629.
Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization
Science, 15(3), 295–309.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. (forthcoming). Theorizing practice and practicing theory.
Organization Science.
Galunic, D. C. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1996). The evolution of intracorporate domains:
Divisional charter losses in high-technology multidivisional corporations. Organization
Science, 7(3), 255–282.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resources versus routine rigidity.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763.
Gioia, D. A. (2004). A renaissance self: Prompting personal and professional revitalization. In:
R. E. Stablein & P. J. Frost (Eds), Renewing research practice (pp. 97–114). Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.
Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An
insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpretation: Sense-
making during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3),
370–403.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic
change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science,
5(3), 363–383.
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publications.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (1993). Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic
texts convince. Organization Science, 4(4), 595–616.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (2006). Composing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Graebner, M. E. (2004). Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value in the
integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 751–777.
Graebner, M. E. (2009). Caveat venditor: Trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 435–472.
Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as
courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 49, 366–403.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (1998). Discourse and organization. London: Sage
Publications.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In:
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hallen, B. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Catalyzing strategies: How entrepreneurs accelerate
inter-organizational relationship formation to secure professional investments, Social
Science Research Network. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract¼1372328. Retrieved
on January 15, 2011.
Heracleous, L. (2006). Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative
actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778.
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2007). Developing issue-selling effectiveness over time: Issue selling as
resourcing. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use.
Organization Studies, 35(4), 529–560.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London: Sage

Publications.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management
Journal, 51(4), 621–650.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice
perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5–27.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, G., Prashantham, S., Floyd, S. W., & Bourque, N. (2010). The ritualization of
strategy workshops. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1589–1618.
Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and
machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22(2), 320–346.
Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A
critique. Organization Studies, 12, 251–273.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management
Review, 24(4), 691–710.
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(35),
271–282.
Langley, A. (2009). Studying processes in and around organizations. In: D. Buchanan &
A. Bryman (Eds), Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 409–429).
London: Sage Publications.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and
vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161–187.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Liu, F., & Maitlis, S. (2010). Changing plans: Emotional dynamics in the construction of a
strategic plan. Workshop on talk, text, tools in the practice of strategy, Montreal,
August 5, 2010.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Maguire, S., & Phillips, N. (2008). ‘Citibankers’ at Citigroup: A study of the loss of institutional
trust after a merger. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 372–401.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(1), 21–49.
Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. (2003). Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: Understanding
failures in organizational strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 109–140.
Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical
discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19, 341–358.
Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2010). Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaborations in
multi-business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 265–301.
Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., & Yanow, D. (2009). Re-turn to practice: An introductory
essay. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1309–1327.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior: The limits and possibilities of theory and
research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Molloy, E., & Whittington, R. (2005). Practices of organising inside and outside the processes
of change. Advances in Strategic Management, 22, 497–521.
Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity,
knowledge and practice: Attempting strategic change by knowledge grafting. Academy of
Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network
strategies and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 246–279.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology.
London, UK: Routledge.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice.
Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis. Investigating processes of social
construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Phillips, N., Sewell, G., & Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in strategic
management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 770–789.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative
research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
Rasche, A., & Chia, R. (2009). Researching strategy practices: A genealogical social theory
perspective. Organization Studies, 30(7), 713–734.
Ravenswood, K. (forthcoming). Eisenhardt’s impact on theory in case study research. Journal
of Business Research, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.08.014.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in cultural theorizing.
European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schema: The
role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), forthcoming.
Rindova, V., Dalpiaz, E., & Ravasi, R. (2011). A cultural quest: A study of organizational use
of new cultural resources in strategy formation. Organization Science, 22(2), 413–431.
Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle
managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7),
1413–1441.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to
shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 141–174.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries:
Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643–671.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (2001). The practice turn in social theory.
London: Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4),
633–642.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 50, 35–67.
Vaara, E., Kleymann, B., & Seristö, H. (2004). Strategies as discursive constructions: The case
of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 1–35.
Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2004). Critical discourse analysis as a methodology for international
business studies. In: R. Piekkari (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for
international business (pp. 342–362). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strategy as a multifaceted and
interdiscursive phenomenon. Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 29–50.
Vaara, E., & Monin, P. (2010). A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and
organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. Organization Science, 21(1), 3–22.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic
Management Journal, 13(Summer special issue), 169–188.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies,
28, 613–634.
Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy practice and strategy process: Family differences and the
sociological eye. Organization Studies, 28(10), 1575–1586.
Yin, R. K. (2009 [1984]). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire
resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 70–105.

Langley & Abdallah 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Langley & Abdallah 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Langley & Abdallah 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEMPLATES AND TURNS IN

Ann Langley and Chahrazad Abdallah

Purpose – This chapter presents four different approaches to doing and

Building Methodological Bridges

Originality/Value – The chapter should be helpful to researchers

Keywords: case studies; qualitative research; strategy process; strategy

This chapter discusses a range of ways in which qualitative methods may be

In this chapter, while building on previous work, we take a somewhat

As mentioned earlier, in describing these approaches, we focus not only

The Eisenhardt Template: Credibly Novel Nomothetic Theory

Kathleen Eisenhardt’s (1989a) article on ‘‘Building theories from case study

Table 1. Two Templates for Qualitative Studies of Strategy

Offering explanation: Ask why for Elaborating the story: Elaborate

Epistemological Foundations and Purposes: Toward Testable Propositions

paradoxical at ﬁrst sight. The need for both defamiliarization and

Logic of the Method: Designing to Maximize the Chances of Credible Novelty

might be enhanced by previous successful research that has had practical

1989a). The fashioning of these constructs is a creative moment of the

Rhetoric of the Writing: Establishing Novelty, Providing Evidence, and

Assessing the Template: Limitations and Variations

study indeed demonstrates how the outcomes of one phase of development

The Gioia Method: Interpretive Modeling of Informant

distinctive ﬂavor that has given rise to numerous empirical studies,

Epistemological Foundations and Purposes: Toward Interpretive Understanding

This quotation neatly sums up the interpretive philosophy driving the

Rhetoric of the Writing: Establishing the Gap, ‘‘Distilling the Essence,’’

The rhetorical structure of the articles by Gioia and colleagues that we

Assessing the Template: Limitations and Variations

The two approaches to qualitative analysis of strategy process phenomena

The Practice Turn: Studying Strategy as a Social Practice

Epistemological Foundations and Empirical Exemplars

Table 2. Two ‘‘Turns’’ in Qualitative Research on Strategy

Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1977) into various subﬁelds of organization theory

be viewed as ‘‘something people do’’ (Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski,

First, practice theorizing emphasizes the way in which knowledge is

Doing and Writing Research from the Practice Turn

required to capture the recursive nature of practices as in Jarzabkowski’s (2008)

(Langley, 1999, p. 703) to explicitly examine how iterative actions taken

Assessing the Turn: Limitations and Variations

The Discursive Turn: Studying Strategy as Discourse

Epistemological Foundations and Empirical Exemplars

socioconstructivist epistemologies inspired by Berger and Luckmann (1967),

and conﬂict (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001), or how dominant discourses

Doing and Writing Research from the Discursive Turn

speciﬁc ways of systematically analyzing the content of texts, for example,

Assessing the Turn: Limitations and Variations

detail and worked examples to build conﬁdence in and understanding of

This chapter has considered four different ways in which qualitative

Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London: Sage

You might also like