Assessing the use of Bourdieu’skey concepts in the

strategy-as-practice fieldPedro S. Hurtado

A.R. Sanchez School of Business, Texas A&M International University,Laredo, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the elucidation of key concepts in the newfield of strategy-as-practice, in order to clarify the proper object of inquiry/unit of analysis. It does soby evaluating the degree of incorporation of Pierre Bourdieu’s “theory of practice” in the literature.Bourdieu is one of the pioneers of the “practice turn” in sociology.

Design/methodology/approach – A summary and graphical framework of the key concepts ofBourdieu’s “theory of practice” are developed. A small “theoretical sample” (in the sense usedin “grounded theory” methodology) of representative authors and articles in the new field ofstrategy-as-practice is analyzed vis-a-vis the developed framework to probe and evaluate the degree ofinclusion of Bourdieu’s key concepts in the literature.

Findings – The incorporation of Bourdieu’s key concepts is very limited and sometimesmisinterpreted. His concept of “habitus” is generally cited, but its collective implications are notemphasized and neither is its connection to social structures and power. There is significant debatearound the proper unit of analysis for the new field of strategy-as-practice, as well as issues of therelation between micro and macro approaches to strategy.

Originality/value – The paper opens up new conceptual possibilities for the understanding andpossible application of Bourdieu’s “theory of practice.”

Keywords Sociology, Strategic management, Best practice, Organizational theory

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe strategy-as-practice field in general, and the concept of “practice” specifically, hasbeen conceptualized on the basis of multiple theoretical frameworks: detailed everydaystrategizing by managerial actors (Whittington, 1996, 2003), sensemaking (Stensaker,2003), discourse theory (Mantere and Vaara, 2004), and of course, theories of practice(Chia, 2004; Chia and Mackay, 2007; Hellmann and Rasche, 2006). This has lead toalternative formulations of the concept of practice, as well as to different emphases inthe research agenda of the relatively new field. At the empirical level, it has also lead toalternative methodological orientations (Chia and Mackay, 2007; Jarzablowski, 2004;Godard and Bouty, 2007; Hellmann and Rasche, 2006).

As a result of the different conceptualizations, there are several perspectives aboutwhat constitutes the proper object of inquiry (and associated unit of analysis) in thenew field (Jarzablowsky, 2004; Chia and Mackay, 2007; Godard and Bouty, 2007;Whittington, 2003, Hellmann and Rasche, 2006). There are also disagreements as to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1059-5422.htm

A previous version of this paper appeared in Competition Forum Vol. 6, 2008, the ConferenceProceedings for the American Society of Competitiveness.

CR20,1

52

Competitiveness Review: AnInternational Business JournalVol. 20 No. 1, 2010pp. 52-61q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1059-5422DOI 10.1108/10595421011019975

what distinguishes the new field from already established ones such as the processapproach to strategy, the institutional approach, or the resource-based view(Whittington, 2003; Chia and Mackay, 2007).

This state of affairs has issued in calls for conceptual clarification, includingphilosophical clarification at both the ontological and epistemological levels (Chia andMackay, 2007; Hellmann and Rasche, 2006). The key concept that seems to be at thecenter of debate is the concept of “practice.” One of the key scholars on the concept of“practice” was the eminent French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) who entitledone of his best known books The Logic of Practice (Bourdieu, 1990b). This paper willfocus on the way the work of Bourdieu has been incorporated in the strategy-as-practice literature and its impact on the research agendas of the new field.

Problem definition and scopeThe paper’s objective is to probe (on an exploratory basis) the extent of the influence ofBourdieu’s work on the “logic of practice” on some of the major authors in the literatureof strategy-as-practice. The selection of authors was made on the basis of “theoreticalsampling” as used in grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Theintent of the “theoretical sample” is to maximize the variability of the degree ofincorporation of Bourdieu’s work across the different authors. Prior to a discussion ofthe degree of incorporation, a summary of Bourdieu’s meta-theory of practice isprovided in the following section. This meta-theory makes explicit the constellation ofconcepts that surround Bourdieu’s concept of “practice.” In a subsequent section, foreach author (specifically for each article discussed), the range of Bourdieu’s conceptsused is specified. The degree to which Bourdieu’s meta-theory of practice has beenincorporated – in the conceptual and methodological orientations – of the examinedauthors, is briefly assessed. Conclusions then follow regarding the implications ofthe paper’s findings concerning the lack of conceptual clarification in thestrategy-as-practice field.

Regarding the scope of the paper, a few observations can be made. First, the paperdoes not present an exhaustive and in-depth account of Bourdieu’s theory of practice.Rather a summary is made that highlights the range of concepts used by Bourdieu andtheir inter-relatedness. This summary is then given a visual representation. Second,Bourdieu’s development of his meta-theory is deeply intertwined with his empiricalwork in several disciplines. This chronological account of the evolution of Bourdieu’smeta-theory is not covered in this paper. Third, the focus in this paper is in theclarification of the concept of “practice” and its associated concepts. For this reason, theissues related to the ways Bourdieu uses multiple research methodologies is notdiscussed here, either. Fourth, this paper will not address the “reflexivity” ofBourdieu’s approach toward empirical research where he reflects on his own influenceas a researcher on the constitution of the object of inquiry. Finally, it is also beyond thescope of this paper to translate or transpose Bourdieu’s concepts to make an explicitapplication to articulate the resolution of the different issues in strategy-as-practice.It is suggested that, prior to attempting a translation of Bourdieu’s theoreticalframework to the field of strategy-as-practice, the researcher should try to understandBourdieu’s work in its own terms, including the empirical battles that he fought inseveral disciplines. Only after this is done, will the researcher be able to properlyincorporate Bourdieu’s work in other management disciplines.

Assessing theuse of Bourdieu’s

key concepts

53

A summary of Bourdieu’s meta-theoryBourdieu’s concepts cannot be discussed in isolation. They are highly interdependentand can be considered to be part of a meta-theory rather than a theory. His meta-theoryis intended to guide research and to elicit research questions, and thus it is notconsidered as a theory to be validated, as Bourdieu himself has used the concepts toboth theorize and conduct empirical research regarding a variety of social phenomena.Among Bourdieu’s key concepts one can list the following: habitus, field, practice,objective structures, interests, resources, capital, doxa, and symbolic power. In thefollowing paragraphs these concepts will be discussed.

Bourdieu attempts to transcend the duality of objectivism (structuralism) andsubjectivism (phenomenology, interpretivism). While the former emphasizes socialstructure, leading to determinism, the latter emphasizes agency (intentionality) leadingto methodological individualism. In order to go beyond this duality, Bourdieuintroduces three key concepts as the foundation of his theory of practice: “practice,”“habitus,” and “fields” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). These concepts and relatedones will now be presented and briefly discussed.

Bourdieu claims that, in stable societies, social structures are reproduced by socialpractices. Mediating practices and structures is the “habitus.” Bourdieu defines“habitus” as the “durably inculcated system of structured, structuring dispositions”(Bourdieu, 1990b). In the words of Baert (1998, p. 31): “habitus is a generative scheme ofdispositions [. . .] tacitly acquired during childhood, and therefore durable”. Thesedispositions, that generate social practice, are acquired through early socialization.Furthermore, the habitus is embodied in individuals, while being at the same time acollective property of groups of individuals with similar socializations (groups whichBourdieu calls “classes”). In another work, Bourdieu(1990a, p. 190) attempts anexpanded definition of habitus:

The source of historical action [. . .] is not an active subject confronting society as if thatsociety were an object constituted externally. The source resides neither in consciousness norin things (objective social structures) but in the relationship between two stages of the social,that is, between the history objectified in things [objective social structures], in the form ofinstitutions, and in the history incarnated in bodies, in the form of that system of enduringdispositions which I call habitus.

Another one of Bourdieu’s key concepts is that of “field.” Bourdieu (1990b) defines“fields” as “networks of social relations, structured systems of social positions, withinwhich struggles or maneuvers take place over resources, stakes and access”.According to Benson (1999):

Bourdieu sees society as differentiated into a number of semi-autonomous fields [. . .]governed by their own ‘rules of the game’ and offering their own particular economy ofexchange and reward [. . .]

Everett (20020, p. 60) highlights the difference between “fields” and systems:

[. . .] the fact that they are sites of struggles and endless change makes “fields” different than“systems”, for systems postulate common function, internal cohesion, and self-regulation.

A “field” is structured in terms of social positions and power relationships. Their“habitus” confers the players in the field a practical “sense of the game.”

CR20,1

54

Within a field, the players have “stakes” in the game, and also have access to aportfolio of resources/capital, both in terms of volume and of composition ordistribution of capital/resources. Bourdieu recognizes different types of “capital”:economic, cultural, and social capital. Cultural capital is associated with knowledgeand skills and may be strongly influenced by education. As a special type of culturalcapital one may also consider “linguistic capital,” which may be used, for instance, tosupport persuasive communication. Social capital refers to the network of socialrelations that the player may use to his/her advantage. As a composite form of capital,Bourdieu recognizes “symbolic capital,” which even though it originates from the otherforms of capital, it has the peculiarity of being unrecognized. In the words of Everett(2002):

The other forms of capital are converted to symbolic capital the instant they are deemedlegitimate. This is why symbolic capital may well be the most valuable form, for it is only theform of symbolic capital that the ultimate basis of power – wealth – can exert power andexert it durably.

In all cases, the concept of capital implies the accumulation of resources.Within a field, players engage in “social practices” which Bourdieu also calls

“strategies” or “coping strategies.” For a given group of players (in the same class orposition) within a “field,” these practices or strategies are generated by the class’habitus. Regarding the habitus as a system of generating principles, Bourdieu alsostates, “[. . .] the real principles of strategies, that is, a sense of things, or, if one prefers,what athletes call a sense of the game” (Lamaison and Bourdieu, 1986). Although thestrategies are bounded by the possibilities of the habitus, there is room for creativityand improvisation.

Figure 1 shows a simplified summary of Bourdieu’s interrelated concepts by meansof a simple diagram of a hypothetical autonomous field. In the figure, we can see thatthe objective conditions of the field (represented succinctly in terms of social positionsand both amount and distribution of different forms of capital) represent a social worldwhich through socialization leads to the habitus of the groups or classes; the habitus(as embodied dispositions) manifest as practices that take place in the context of thefield’s game (with the groups’ specific stakes and interests). In a circular fashion, thefigure also shows that the practices produce outcomes that have an impact on positionsand the amount and distribution of capital, outcomes that ultimately reproduce theobjective conditions of the field. The figure also highlights the struggles betweengroups through their strategies, struggles wherein some strategies are made legitimateby “symbolic power.” Finally, although not seen in the figure, there is a deeper aspectof the overall habitus, which Bourdieu calls “doxa,” the assumed and unquestionedpostulates or axioms taken for granted by all the players of the field (Swartz, 1998).The “doxa” is also a ground for symbolic power.

Although Bourdieu emphasizes the reproduction of the field’s objective conditionsthrough practices mediated by the habitus, which may lead to the belief that hismeta-theory is deterministic, there are aspects of his framework that point otherwise.For instance, he emphasizes that strategies can also be improvised creative maneuvers.In that way, the habitus can be partly analogous to a grammar in that it allows formultiple possibilities of expression. Bourdieu also recognizes that since the habitus isembodied, it has a history and, under some conditions, if the objective conditions of thefield change significantly, then the practices that would still be generated by the inertia

Assessing theuse of Bourdieu’s

key concepts

55

of the habitus will no longer reproduce the objective conditions of the field. In that case,Bourdieu explains that the habitus will be out of phase with the field’s conditions. This,Bourdieu’s calls “hysteresis,” which he states may have the impact of causing a shift inthe agents pre-reflexive consciousness of the practices towards a more reflective andrational consciousness, which may lead the agents to modify the practices.

The provided summary of Bourdieu’s meta-theory will now be used in the followingsection as a reference point to establish the ways in which Bourdieu’s concepts havebeen used by some representative authors in the strategy-as-practice literature.

Analysis of Bourdieu’s appropriation in the literatureIn this section, a subset of articles of selected authors will be examined in regards totheir use (or lack thereof) of Bourdieu’s concepts. The authors are selected for theirsalience in the debate regarding the theoretical and methodological directions that theemerging field of strategy-as-practice should take. For this reason, the small sample ofauthors/articles is not to be understood as “statistical sampling” but rather as“theoretical sampling” (Glasser and Strauss, 1967). Included in the analysis are authorsat the origins of the new field or in close proximity to the origins (Whittington, 1996,2003). Also included are authors who have probed into aspects of Bourdieu’sframework and have also examined alternative philosophical foundations for the newfield (Chia, 2004; Chia and Mackay, 2007). Finally, more recent authors who haveattempted a deeper understanding of the new field in terms of its theoretical

Figure 1.Example of anautonomous field

Group B(Dominated

position)

Amount anddistributionof capital

Group A(Dominantposition)

Amount anddistributionof capital

Group A's field position

Group B's field's position

Practices/strategies

Practices/strategies

Stakes Interests

Stakes Interests

Group B'sHABITUS

Group A'sHABITUS

Struggles OutcomesExercise ofsymbolic

power

Reproduction of field's objective conditions

Reproduction of field's objective conditions

Socialrelationships

CR20,1

56

foundations and research methodologies will also be considered (Godard and Bouty,2007). In the following paragraphs, several questions will be addressed regarding thedifferent authors:

. Which of Bourdieu’s concepts of his theory of practice have been used?

. Have these concepts been used independently or interdependently with otherconcepts?

. Has Bourdieu’s approach to research methodologies been accepted andimplemented?

For each author, the appropriate questions will be considered.In a 1996 article, Whittington identifies an emerging approach to strategy termed

“strategy as practice” (Whittington (1996). He states that the focus of this approach is“on how the practitioners of strategy act and interact” (Whittington, 1996). He alludesto “managerial activity” and to the “perspiration” and intensive detailed work thatmanagers do when engaging in the practice of strategizing. He states, “Getting thingsdone involves the nitty-gritty, often tiresome and repetitive routines of strategy”(Whittington, 1996). He points to a methodological approach to studying strategy aspractice when he states, “The nitty-gritty, local routines of practice are not easilyunderstood or influenced from a distance” (Whittington, 1996). Furthermore, he pointsto certain categories of agents who already have an affinity with the new perspective(which he may implicitly contrast with the position of academics) when he states,“Most managers and consultants already understand the implications of the practiceperspective, tacitly at least” (Whittington, 2003). Finally, he attempts to distinguish thenew emerging field in contrast with strategy process research when he states, “Themain interest of process research remains, however, the fate of the whole organization,rather than the performance of the individual practitioner” (Whittington, 2003). Thus,he focuses in the detailed skills of the individual strategy practitioners as they engagein their everyday practices of strategizing.

While Whittington’s, 1996 article does cite Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1990b), other thantheir common use of the word “practice” (understood however very differently),Whittington does not use Bourdieu’s “logic of practice,” or any of its concepts. In fact,while Bourdieu has the habitus (as both an individual and a collective characteristic) asthe generating principle of (social) practices, Whittington has in mind the individualagent (the individual manager, strategist) as the object of study, with a focus on theminutiae of the strategist’s everyday work.

In a more recent article, Whittington (2003) again focuses on the intensive labor andthe minutiae of the managerial work of doing strategy. He states:

It takes a lot of work to make strategy [. . .] Data are gathered and analyzed, documents arewritten and presentations are made. There are project meetings, board meetings, conferences,workshops. [. . .]

As a result of this characterization of highly skilled managerial labor, he brings forthsix research questions to guide the strategy as practice field:

[. . .] where and how the work of strategizing [. . .] is actually done; who does this strategizing[. . .] what are the skills required for this work and how are they are acquired; what are thecommon tools and techniques of strategizing [. . .] how is the work of strategizing [. . .]

Assessing theuse of Bourdieu’s

key concepts

57

organized itself; and finally how are the products of strategizing [. . .] communicated andconsumed (Whittington, 2003).

In that article, he also cites Bourdieu when stating that “This attention to people’sactual activity follows a broader ‘practice turn’ in social theory since the 1980s”(Whittington, 2003), while referring among others to Bourdieu’s (1990a) opus “the logicof practice”. However, in spite of citing Bourdieu, as stated in the previous paragraph,neither the theory nor any of Bourdieu’s concepts are used. He is interested in helpingmanaging practitioners. He states:

What we can take from the managerial work tradition is the prospect of helping managers inpractical ways. As Mintzberg (1974, p. 54) said: ‘the first step in providing that help is to findout what a manager’s job really is’ [. . .] (Whittington, 2003).

Consider now the work of Robert Chia in his 2004 article on strategy as practice (Chia,2004). In this paper, Chia makes intensive use of Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus”(he uses it at least ten times). Concerning Bourdieu’s understanding of “habitus” asembodied dispositions, Chia (2004) questions:

Are these visible practices really strategy-shaping? Or are they in fact the meremanifestations of an underlying unconscious pattern of dispositions that provide consistencyto managerial actions that we may accurately call strategy-in-practice.

Notice that he is strongly associating the notion of consistency in a pattern of actionsand the concept of strategy. This will enable him to conflate the traditional connotationof strategy to the sense given to that notion by Bourdieu in his theory of practice (as ithas been shown in a previous section). Following Bourdieu, Chia (2004) does not placeemphasis in individual actors (as Whittington does), stating that:

Outcomes cannot be easily correlated to agency and intentions, and if some regularity ofoccurrences appears to take place, it is because the habitus acts to generate all the reasonableand commonsense behaviors [. . .]

Although Chia does engage directly with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, he does so inan isolated manner, not even mentioning the other interrelated concepts of Bourdieu’stheory of practice, such as “field,” “capital,” “symbolic power,”, etc. which have beendiscussed in a previous section. On the basis of his parallel discussion of H.L. Dreyfus’concept of “style” (which he equates with habitus), it would be possible to tentativelystate that Chia’s understanding of Bourdieu has been mediated by H.L. Dreyfus who isa scholar of Heidegger. It appears that Dreyfus emphasized largely the concept of“style” because of the resonances it has with the concept of Heidegger’s ways of“being-in-the-world,” ways which a pre-reflective in nature. This is a possible reasonthat Chia’s use of Bourdieu’s concept is a partial one, and focused only on the habitus.

In a subsequent article, Chia and Holt, 2006 addresses the problem of distinguishingthe field of strategy-as-practice from the already established process perspective. Hestates that the new field has the same underlying philosophical assumptions as theprocess perspective in strategy. At the core of his argument he states that bothapproaches to strategy share the assumption of “methodological individualism,” whichemphasizes individual agency. Thus, he states, “The basic locus of analysis instrategy-making remains the individual rather than the social practice itself” (Chia andHolt, 2006). Diplomatically and politely he also states that:

CR20,1

58

[. . .] studies under the rubric of strategy-as-practice, with some exceptions, have not brokenway from the philosophical commitments, methods, and in many ways, unit of analysis ofstrategy process research. What seems to have changed is the discourse in which processualresearch is explained and communicated (Chia and Holt, 2006).

As in his previously discussed article, Chia seems to assign conceptual equivalence toBourdieu’s “habitus” and Dreyfus’ “style.” In this paper, he articulates implicitly amethodological stance when he states that:

The reason why we cannot easily access these background practices is that they are likewater to a fish swimming in it. We cannot achieve a critical distance from it to study it fromthe outside (Chia and Holt, 2006).

Along the same methodological perspective, Chia and Holt (2006) further states that:

[. . .] neither interviewing practitioners about the reasons for their actions nor asking them toreflect on their actions can give us assurance of the actual character of a practice. What isneeded more urgently is a sympathetic grasping of the internal logic of this practice.

Regarding the alluded “logic of this practice,” Chia makes use of Bourdieu’s concept ofhabitus as he did in his previously mentioned articles. Nevertheless, in this paper, headdresses the concept of hysteresis, briefly explained in the previous section onBourdieu’s theory of practice.

In a 2006 article, Hellman and Rasche (2006) reflect on the strategy-as-practiceagenda. They maintain that the new field “suffers from the absence of a more detaileddiscussion of the term ‘practice’ [. . .] partly due to an insufficient reflection of the term‘practice’ and it sociological interpretation” (Hellman and Rasche, 2006). They discussalternative theories of practice, and in that context they briefly address Bourdieu’sconcepts, where they focus mainly on the concept of habitus. In regards to the proper“unit of analysis” they take issue with Jarzabkowski (2004) when they state that “sheframes practices-in-use as an adequate unit of analysis [. . .] Yet, from our perspective,to study practices solely as practices-in-use overemphasizes the role of conduct(agency)” (Hellman and Rasche, 2006). To discern their position they rely on Giddensand not on Bourdieu. Nevertheless, they, as Bourdieu, do not confer primacy to agencybut rather to social practice in the context of Gidden’s theory of structuration. Theyconclude with asserting that there is a need for conceptual clarification of key terms.Here, Bourdieu’s theory of practice is only briefly discussed, with exclusive focus onthe concept of habitus.

To end our analysis of the appropriation of Bourdieu’s theory of practice, a 2007paper written by Godard and Bounty will be briefly considered. While their papermainly addresses methodological issues, they nevertheless discuss the theoreticalunderpinnings of their methodological orientation. They articulate their concept ofpractice following Bourdieu, thus they state:

Practices are underlying and not openly visible to researchers. In addition, practices are notapparent to actors either. As schemata of action, as habitus [. . .] they are an internalized andunconscious background.

Chia’s influence on their methodological orientation can be traced when they state that:

[. . .] if actors cannot reflect practices, we as researchers must discover them underneathpraxis [observable activities] [. . .] as Chia and Mackay put it actors and practitioners are often

Assessing theuse of Bourdieu’s

key concepts

59

like fish in the water, unable to express their inherited understanding (Chia and Mackay,2007) [. . .] we need ‘deep data’ [. . .] (Godard and Bounty, 2007).

They confirm Chia’s influence when they state, “Chia and Mackay [. . .] recommend a‘sympathetic grasping’ of the internal logic of practice” (Godard and Bouty, 2007).While mainly focusing on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, they also address, althoughmarginally, the concept of field. Thus, they state, “the definition of the field pertinent tothe practices [. . .] is in fact a central question in the design of practice research.” In thepaper, one can see that one of the Bourdieu’s key concepts, that of “field” is beginningto be addressed at least as a theoretical concern.

ConclusionsThe presented analysis of the “theoretical sample” of authors and some of their articlesleads to several observations regarding the appropriation of Bourdieu’s concepts in theemerging field of strategy as practice. First, although it is customary to cite Bourdieu,particularly his book “the logic of practice,” the appropriation of his concepts in thenew field is very limited. Second, in the case of one of the very influential authors(Whittington) the use of Bourdieu is at best marginal; nevertheless, this author hasbeen influential in shaping the research agenda of the new field. Third, no article orpaper in the analyzed sample has apparently engaged either in a broad reading ofBourdieu’s numerous books and articles regarding the theory of practice, nor in areading of the scholarly work regarding Bourdieu’s output. Fourth, there is still aconsiderable range of interpretations of what constitutes the appropriate object ofinquiry in the new field (the issue of the unit of analysis) and of the appropriateresearch methodologies to be used.

Although it is generally acknowledged in his native field (sociology) that Bourdieu’sopus is vast and difficult to digest in its totality, there are nevertheless valuableguidelines that have been formulated to help a newcomer to properly approachBourdieu’s work. It is also advised that Bourdieu be understood in his own terms, bothin his theorizing and in his large and detailed empirical studies, before attempting torush on transposing or translating his theoretical and methodological insights to otherdisciplines (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Unfortunately, it appears that this adviceis not being heeded. Nevertheless, the author of this paper believes that Bourdieu’stheory of practice has a lot to offer to not only to the emerging field ofstrategy-as-practice but also to already established approaches to the study of strategy,such as process research and institutionalization. This paper will have accomplishedits purpose if it motivates the reader to undertake a systematic study of Bourdieu’swork prior to attempting its translation (or at least carried out in parallel) to thedifferent approaches to strategy in the field of strategic management.

References

Baert, P. (1998), “Social Theory in the Twentieth Century”, NYU Press, New York, NY.

Benson, R. (1999), “Field theory in comparative context: a new paradigm for media studies”,Theory and Society, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 463-98.

Bourdieu, P. (1990a), In Other Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology, Stanford UniversityPress, Stanford, CA.

Bourdieu, P. (1990b), The Logic of Practice, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.

CR20,1

60

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL.

Chia, R. (2004), “Strategy-as-practice: reflections on the research agenda”, EuropeanManagement Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 29-34.

Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2006), “Strategy as practical coping: a heideggerian perspective”,Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 635-56.

Chia, R. and Mackay, R. (2007), “Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practiceperspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice”, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 1,pp. 217-42.

Everett, J. (2002), “Organizational research and the praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu”,Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 56-80.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for QualitativeResearch, Aldine Transaction, New York, NY.

Godard, C. and Bouty, I. (2007), “The practice of researching strategy as practice: micro-level andmultifaceted data collection process”, paper presented at 23rd EGOS Conference, Vienna,available at: www.s-as-p.org/files_papers/Godard,%20Bouty-%20The%20practice%20of%20researching%20strategy%20as%20practice%20EGOS.pdf

Hellmann, C. and Rasche, A. (2006), “Strategy practices – what they are (not) – reflectionson the strategy-as-practice research agenda”, working paper, available at: www.s-as-p.org/files_papers/strategy%20pracices%20-%20what%20they%20are.pdf

Jarzabkowski, P. (2004), “Strategy as practice – recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use”,Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 529-60.

Lamaison, P. and Bourdieu, P. (1986), “From rules to strategies: an interview with PierreBourdieu”, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 110-20.

Mantere, S. and Vaara, E. (2004), “Metaphors as discursive practices – exploring the metaphoricconstruction of strategy and strategizing”, paper presented at 20th Colloquium ofthe European Group of Organization Studies, working paper, available at: www.s-as-p.org/files_papers/Mantere_Vaara.pdf

Stensaker, I. (2003), “Strategizing: the role of sensemaking and sensegiving”, paper presented atEGOS Conference, Copenhagen.

Swartz, D. (1998), Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL.

Whittington, R. (1996), “Strategy as practice”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 731-5.

Whittington, R. (2003), “The work of strategizing and organizing: for a practice perspective”,Strategic Organization, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 117-25.

Corresponding authorPedro S. Hurtado can be contacted at: hurtado@tamiu.edu

Assessing theuse of Bourdieu’s

key concepts

61

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints