Constructivist epistemologies inStrategy as Practice researchS I M O N GRAND, J O H A N N E S RÜEGG-STÜRMa n d W I DAR VON ARXCHAPTER

4IntroductionThe practice turn in strategy research and theStrategy as Practice research programme (Johnson ,Melin and Whittington 2003 ) imply an interestin explicitly reconsidering the epistemologicaland theoretical premises of conducting strategyresearch (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002 ). Particularly,theories, methodologies and perspectives basedon constructivist epistemologies play an importantrole, either explicitly or implicitly. Looking atmain contributions to Strategy as Practice researchover the last few years, a few patterns dominate(Johnson et al . 2007 ): on an empirical level, strategyand strategy making are seen as involving multipleprocesses and activities, with multiple actorsdistributed inside and outside the organizationover multiple organizational layers. On a theoreticallevel, the study of strategy making as practicerequires perspectives which grasp this heterogeneityof processes, activities and actors, and theirsituatedness, embeddedness and idiosyncrasy; it isargued that a focus on the practice of strategy makingimplies a discussion of the underlying actiontheories (Grand and McLean 2007 ; Jarzabkowski2004 ; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002 ). On an epistemologicallevel, this emphasis on strategy makingas practice requires a refl ection of scientifi cresearch as practice (Knorr Cetina 2002 ).In this chapter, we explore why an interest instrategy practice(s) promotes constructivist epistemologiesby discussing important particularitiesand their relevance for strategy research. To focusour discussion, we ask one main question: Howdo constructivist epistemologies shape Strategy asPractice research? We explore this question in threesteps. First, we introduce infl uential constructivistepistemologies , exploring their commonalities,idiosyncrasies and differences. Second, we discussthe impact of constructivist epistemologieson research in the Strategy as Practice fi eld and,in particular, on the study of strategizing practices,the understanding of strategy and the conduct ofstrategy research. Third, we outline a constructivistresearch programme in strategy research.We conclude this chapter by identifying criticalissues which are essential for extending Strategyas Practice research in the perspective of constructivistepistemologies .

Constructivist epistemologiesOut of the multiple perspectives and approaches,we focus on three central, but distinct approaches,which represent the commonalities as well asthe heterogeneities of the constructivist researchprogramme : we discuss the research programmeof social construction (Berger and Luckmann1967 ; Luckmann 1992 ), systemic constructivism(Maturana and Varela 1987 ; Luhmann 1996 )and the empirical programme of constructivism(Latour and Woolgar 1979; Knorr Cetina 1981).Constructivist programmes share four fundamentalconcerns:1. C oncern 1 . They challenge the predominance ofunquestioned dichotomies in the social sciences,between micro and macro, or between situatedactivities and collective practices (Bourdieu andWacquant 1996 ).2. C oncern 2 . Agency is not automatically associatedwith particular entities (‘individual’,‘organization’), but it must be studied as distributedand related in particular ways in particularcontexts (Latour 2005 ).

C oncern 3 . The constructivist programmesquestion a conception of ‘reality’ as somethingthat is ‘objectively given’; this explains whyconstructivist perspectives imply epistemologicalconsiderations.4. Concern 4 . Therefore, the constructivist programmesexplicitly study the status of ‘knowledge’(Tsoukas 2005 ), the relation to the‘world’ (Goodman 1987 ) or the status of scientific knowledge creation (Knorr Cetina 2002 ).Although these constructivist programmesshare major concerns, they differ with respect totheir basic premises (Knorr Cetina 1989 ; Hacking1999 ).Research programme of socialconstructionThe research programme of social construction isembedded in a phenomenological reinterpretationof the social sciences (Husserl 1931 ; Schütz 1932 ),studying ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ as resultingfrom social construction processes; reality isalways a reality for humans and from humans.Thereby, it is important to understand how it ispossible that particular ‘realities’ are accepted as‘objective’, ‘given’, ‘external’ or ‘natural’. In theperspective of the research programme of socialconstruction, knowledge is studied as resultingfrom social construction processes and, in particular,institutionalization , objectivation and legitimation(Berger and Luckmann 1967 ), describingthese processes as leading to the experience of astable, given, justifi ed background knowledge andsocial order. Scientifi c knowledge results fromsecond-order knowledge creation, the construction

of scientifi c ‘knowledge’ on the social constructionof ‘knowledge’. Every phenomenon can thusbe studied as the result of social construction processes(Hacking 1999 ), social construction being the‘objectivation’ of meaning towards shared understandingand common knowledge. More recently,the research programme of social construction hasexplicitly turned towards a theory of social action(Luckmann 1992 ), identifying social action andinteraction as the primary locus of social meaningmaking. This is a coherent extension of the initial research programme, which emphasizes thatcommon-sense knowledge is a central focus of anysociology of knowledge, similar to the practiceturn in the social sciences.In the perspective of the fundamental concernsof constructivist research programmes (seeabove), social constructivism focuses on the constructionof ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ as resultingfrom particular construction processes. Instead ofpre-assuming the existence of social order, commonknowledge and the world (concern 3), thisresearch programme focuses on the importanceof legitimation , institutionalization and objectivation. Thereby, social action is shaped and enabledby the taken-for-granted social knowledge whichis legitimate and objective in a particular situationor context, but which gains its legitimacyand objectivity through the social constructionprocesses which transcend individual situationsand contexts (concern 1). Although this researchprogramme refers to ‘knowledge’, the ‘social’ andsocial ‘action’ as a conceptual foundation and anessential theoretical reference (‘proto-sociology’;Eberle 1992 ), their meaning is contextual (concern2). Thereby, the research programme of socialconstruction is understood as ‘sociology of knowledge’( concern 4). Social ‘reality’ is grasped as‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. The objective reality,although resulting from social construction,appears to the individual as given; the subjectivereality refers to the continuous meaning making ineveryday interactions.While this perspective has been infl uential inthe social sciences and in most discussions of constructivistepistemologies , it is often cited without acareful consideration of these underlying premises.Furthermore, various diffi culties of this perspectivehave been discussed over time: it is argued that theapplication of this perspective can become tautological,if ‘social’ phenomena are seen as resultingfrom ‘social’ construction (Latour 2005 ); it remainsdiffi cult to demonstrate in an empirical study that‘something’ is socially constructed (Hacking1999 ); the approach assumes a collectively sharedcommon understanding of ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’,while their fragility and heterogeneity areunderexplored. Overall, the intuition behind the

research programme of social construction is a central reference for constructivist epistemologies ,but without a careful consideration of the underlyingpremises, the simple assertion of ‘reality’ and‘knowledge’ as being constructed becomes trivial.Systemic constructivismIn line with this critique, and in order to identifya more explicit conceptual foundation, constructivismcan be understood as the epistemology andmethodology of systems theory . Human cognitionin everyday activities and scientifi c practice is notrepresenting an objective, given world, but is anactive process of constructing and inventing reality(Watzlawick 1984 ). There is no correspondencebetween an outer world and its ‘representation’or construction in our brains. The brain operatesaccording to structures and criteria which do nothave the aim of correctly representing the world.The only relevant criterion is viability, understoodas the capacity to successfully cope with the ‘real’world. As a consequence, the cognition processitself does not work in a given and stable manner.Rather, it itself undergoes a historical developmentand differentiation process depending on previouscognition and experience. Whatever is recognized tobe real, relevant and true has an impact back on thecognition process itself and vice versa. Cognitivestructures and content are mutually dependent;this phenomenon is called ‘self-referentiality’ . Onthe basis of such an understanding, information orknowledge are not regarded as given entities but asprocesses of informing and knowing.Hence, reality is not conceptualized as a givenentity, but as a fragile process of becoming. Whatwe call ‘reality’ or ‘knowledge’ is an ongoingcontingent process of enactment (Weick 1979 ).Constructivism is therefore understood as an‘operative epistemology’ (Von Foerster 1981 ): anyinformation is ‘a difference that makes a differ ence’(Bateson 1972 ). Such an epistemological conceptualizationfundamentally challenges traditionalideas of reality and knowledge, as well as ourunderstanding of good social research; at the sametime, it marks a fundamental epistemological turnin systems theory itself: the shift from fi rst-orderto second-order cybernetics (Von Foerster 1981 ).A fi rst domain where this process of constructing and enacting reality occurs are cognitive systems .The so-called Radical Constructivism (Glasersfeld1995 ; Watzlawick 1984 ) focuses on processes ofcognitive construction, supplemented by insightsfrom genetic epistemology (Piaget 1995 ) and fromthe theory of autopoietic systems (Maturana andVarela 1987 ). A second domain where this processof constructing and enacting reality occurs is communicativesystems (Luhmann 1986 , 1996 ). Inthis perspective, communications (and not humanbeings) are the basic elements of social systems .

What is considered as real, relevant and true in acommunication process depends on the contextof this process, which is itself continuously cocreatedin the ongoing communication process.From a systems theory perspective, the workingmode of cognitive systems and of communicativesystems is characterized by operational closure .Any data are processed according to the (cognitiveor communicative ) structures which have historicallyevolved. However, cognitive and communicativesystems operate structurally coupled. There isa mutual dependence, but nevertheless each systemoperates autonomously. Particularly relevantfor practice research is the aspect that the ‘social’represents a separate domain characterized byoperational autonomy and with idiosyncratic structures;human beings represent the ‘environment’of these social systems . Both social and cognitivesystems process meaning and enact structures. Butin order to enable (collective) action there is nocongruence between social and mental structuresrequired. Rather, thoughts and communicationsneed to be mutually compatible and connective,so that ongoing sensemaking is possible. Systemicconstructivism thus strives to explain the social,not from the individual’s mental structures, but byconceptualizing the social as an autonomous realitydomain (Luhmann 1996 ).Systemic constructivism addresses some of theopen issues in the research programme of socialconstruction (see above). Particularly, systemicconstructivism makes a distinction between cognitiveand social systems , thereby not taking individualagency or social entities as the basis forstudying social phenomena, but the ongoing processesof communication (concern 2). This leadsto a decentralization of agency, which means relying on communication itself, which has alwaysalready taken place and which creates ‘reality’,independent of individual consciousness (concern3). Thereby, one focus lies on the processesof drawing distinctions as the fundamental premisefor shaping social ‘reality’ and the organizationof ‘knowledge’. This allows for internalizingthe diffi culties associated with many unquestioneddichotomies in the social sciences (concern 1).As a consequence, systemic constructivism isinherently refl exive. It emphasizes the necessityof observing the process of observation as theessence of research (concern 4). Thereby, systemicconstructivism is an operative epistemology (VonFoerster 1981 ), which means that there is never afi nal description of a phenomenon, but knowledgecreation is inherently processual and open towardsfuture development.The fundamental shift in systemic epistemologylies in its focus on communication. This shiftcoincides with the linguistic turn in philosophy

(Rorty 1989 ), identifying communication as thecentral process enacting ‘reality’ and creating‘agency’ in the social world. One important differencefrom the other constructivist epistemologieslies in the conceptualization of situated activities,which are reduced to manifestations and actualizationsof communication. Thereby, some issuesand problems of this perspective have been raisedover time: while most social theories explicitlytake the everyday theorizing of the social actorsas an important informant about social meaning,systemic constructivism neglects individual consciousnessas being not important for the studyof communication and social reality; furthermore,the process of making distinctions assumes thepossibility of rather clear-cut distinctions, while itcan be argued that most empirical phenomena andsocial references are characterized by an inherentambiguity and fuzziness (Latour 1999 ).The empirical programme ofconstructivismContrary to the other two research programmes ,the empirical programme of constructivism arguesthat it is problematic to pre-assume any theory ofconstruction, because this implies that the study of construction processes is pre-conceptualizedand not empirically analysed (Latour 2005 ). Theempirical programme of constructivism arguesthat it is fundamental to studying the multipleconstruction processes involved in the creationof ‘reality’, the ‘world’ or ‘knowledge’. They arestudied as resulting from multiple, heterogeneous,situated and fragile activities (Knorr Cetina 1989 ).The research process is not guided by theoreticalpremises, but by a specifi c repertoire of researchdevices and methodological practices. Thereby,the empirical programme is looking for the selfevident,which is taken for granted and must bedeconstructed by the research process, openingthe black boxes of social ‘reality’ (Latour 1999 ).As a consequence, this research programme isinterested in studying the inherently controversial,heterogeneous, fragile, situated nature of anysocial phenomenon.This explains the prominent status of the sciencestudies in this research programme. Scientifi cresearch as the locus of knowledge creation is aprototypical context for understanding the constructionof ‘true’, ‘objective’, ‘valid’, ‘natural’worldviews in modern societies (Knorr Cetina2002; Latour and Woolgar 1979). Furthermore,this research interest is closely related to the socalledpractice turn in the social sciences (Bourdieu1977 ; Foucault 1971 ; Schatzki et al . 2001 ), whichis interested in understanding how the ‘stability’and ‘objectivity’ of ‘reality’ is created in mundaneactivities, situated actions, and local practices.Finally, this explains the relation of this research

programme to anthropological perspectives (Geertz1973 ), which cultivate the creation of an alienatedview on the self-evident. Neither pre-specifi ed theories,nor everyday theories of the actors involved,can guide the research process, but they must bedescribed in their creation (Latour 2005 ). The mainpreoccupation of research is thus to develop methodologieswhich allow us to study ‘world creation’(Knorr Cetina 1989 ) as the continuous ‘manufacturing’of knowledge under conditions of uncertainty(Knorr Cetina 2002 ).This reconceptualization of research providesseveral insights: the empirical programmeof constructivism not only challenges unquestioneddichotomies in the social sciences, but any unquestioned and taken-for-granted foundation(concern 1). This is relevant for the study of ‘reality’,‘knowledge’ and ‘fact’, which cannot be takenfor granted, but must be described in their creation(concern 3); in parallel, it is relevant for the studyof ‘agency’ , which cannot be seen as inherent toany ‘individual’ or ‘organization’, but must beseen as situated, controversial and resulting fromidiosyncratic creation processes (concern 2). Asa consequence, this research programme alwaysrefl ects epistemological issues, including the statusof (scientifi c) ‘knowledge’ and the idiosyncraticprocedures of (scientifi c) knowledge creation(concern 4). The research programme propagatesan understanding of research which is concernedwith the world ‘as it could be’, instead of focusingon the world ‘as it is’, because the ‘world’ is theresult of construction processes. The criterion for‘good’ research is the creation of unconventional,new worldviews and perspectives (Knorr Cetina1989 ), which requires ‘discovery technologies’ ,not theories.This perspective is related to multipleapproaches which are important in the practiceturn (Schatzki et al . 2001 ). Among others, it resonateswith grounded theory building (Strauss andCorbin 1990 ) and related pragmatist epistemologies(Joas 1992 ), emphasizing the creative natureof action and research; it also relates to the interestin creative theories of action (Joas 1992 ; Tsoukasand Knudsen 2002 ). Furthermore, it is in line withthe approaches of social practice (Foucault 1971 ;Bourdieu and Wacquant 1996 ), which emphasizethe importance of refl ecting the practice of doingresearch, shifting the focus from social theoriesto methodological issues (Latour 2005 ). Thisexplains why the empirical programme insists on‘symmetry’ as central for ‘good’ research (KnorrCetina 1989 ). It implies that what it explores interms of the creation of ‘reality’ and the ‘world’holds for scientifi c research. And it implies thatwhile the other constructivist epistemologies arguefor particular theoretical perspectives, the empiricalprogramme of constructivism focuses on the

heterogeneity and variety of situated mechanismsand idiosyncratic activities, relevant for the constructionand stabilization of ‘reality’ in particularcontexts (Knorr Cetina 1989 ). Constructivist epistemologies , practicalrelevance and research practiceIf the world is seen as ‘constructed’, as it is arguedin constructivist epistemologies , this implies that‘it could be otherwise’. Obviously, this awarenessof contingency is a methodological issue, but itcan also be seen as the starting point for changingthe world as it is, and thus as a pragmatic and normativestance, in various degrees of constructivistengagement (Hacking 1999 , p. 39). This is ofimportance for the issue of the practical relevanceof research in the social sciences as well as in managementresearch, as it identifi es different types ofrelevance (Grand 2003 ). Four types of constructivistengagements are particularly interesting.First, a constructivist perspective can be conceptualizedas a methodology emphasizing theconstruction mechanisms underlying particularphenomena. The value of an ‘analytical’ engagement(Foucault 1971 ) lies in reconstructing phenomenaas they are, and identifying alternativesof how they could be. Second, this can lead to an‘ironic’ engagement , which means that the contingencyof a phenomenon is taken as a startingpoint for ironically discussing positions whichaccept phenomena as ‘real’ or ‘objective’ (Rorty1989 ). Third, based on a normative valuation of aphenomenon as it is, this can lead to a ‘reformist’engagement in which the fact that something couldbe otherwise is used to criticize the phenomenonas it is (Hacking 1999 , p. 40): it is here that wecan see the transition towards a practical engagement(Dahrendorf 2005 ; Elkana 1986 ). Fourth, thiscan also lead to a ‘revolutionary’ approach whichopts for fundamental change as the only possibilityof transforming the phenomenon as it is. Thesedegrees of constructivist engagement can be foundin different constructivist research programmes ,including the Strategy as Practice research programme,which does not only focus on describingthe practice of strategy, but explores alternativeways of making strategy (Johnson et al . 2007 ;Whittington 2007 ).Independent of their level of engagement, constructivistepistemologies share basic intuitions.First, constructivist epistemologies not only discussthe world ‘as it is’, but refl ect the contingency of ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’, which leads to aninterest in identifying possible worlds ‘as theycould be’ (Latour 2005 ) or even in changing theworld ‘as it is’ (Hacking 1999 ). Second, constructivistepistemologies explore what is required tobe able to be talking of individual and organizational‘agency’ (Knorr Cetina and Cicourel 1981 ).Instead of pre-assuming ‘agency’ , it is important to

study its pre-requisites and preconditions . Third,this implies an attempt to describe social phenomenabeyond traditional dichotomies (Bourdieu andWacquant 1992 ). Fourth, an explicit considerationof uncertainty and openness of any social interactionand future development is crucial (Gomezand Jones 2000 ). Fifth, research is seen as constructing‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’, emphasizingthe creativity and self-refl exivity of research .Constructivist epistemologies andStrategy as Practice researchWe now turn to the recent contributions and discussionsof the Strategy as Practice research programmeto see whether and how fundamentalpremises of constructivist epistemologies are incorporated,explored and refl ected. We concentrate onthree fundamental ‘black boxes’ in the Strategy asPractice research programme which are importantin the perspective of constructivist epistemologies :the notion of ‘practice’, ‘strategy’ and ‘research’.The construction of strategizing practicesA fundamental shift in the Strategy as Practiceresearch programme is the focus on the everydaymicro-activities of managers in constructing strategy(Whittington 1996 ). In line with constructivistepistemologies , the major attempt is in opening theblack box of strategy creation, instead of relyingon taken-for-granted pre-conceptualization of howstrategy is made (Mintzberg 1971 ); furthermore,the focus is on understanding the particular strategiesas they are created (Johnson et al . 2003 ). Thisapproach emphasizes the importance of describingthe ‘internal life of process’ of strategy making(Brown and Duguid 2001 ), which is not coveredby existing strategy research (Johnson et al . 2003 ; Samra-Fredericks 2003 ; Whittington 1996 ). Thisinterest is close to the empirical programme of constructivism. Thereby, it can be argued that ex ante,every managerial activity and local interactionof people within and outside an organization canpotentially lead to an idea, opportunity, initiative orproject which gains strategic importance. In parallel,strategic is understood as the ex post ascriptionof the label ‘strategic’ to particular activities, eitherby the managers themselves, or by the researchersstudying them.Understanding strategy creation implies that theempirical focus must be extended beyond the interactionof top management teams in formal settingsdedicated to strategy. Middle managers (Balogunand Johnson 2004 ; Floyd and Lane 2000 ; Westley1990 ) and specialized strategists (Grant 2003 ;Pettigrew 1985 ), line managers and specializedunits (Ahrens and Chapman 2007 ; Brown andEisenhardt 1997 ; Orlikowski 2002 ), external stakeholders,including customers (Christensen andBower 1996 ), investors (Bower and Gilbert 2005 ),strategic partners (Dyer and Singh 1998 ), technology

partners (von Hippel and von Krogh 2003 ) andconsultants are involved in strategy creation. Thisheterogeneity of actors and activities, which areactually or potentially relevant for the creation ofstrategy, indicates an opportunity and a challengefor studying strategy creation.Thereby, strategy creation is understood asbeing shaped by idiosyncratic, fi rm-specifi c, context-dependent, situated and local repertoires ofconstruction practices and strategizing routines(Feldman and Pentland 2003 ). In line with thepractice turn in the social sciences, and as a resultof the empirical study of strategizing practices, itis argued that it is not the dispersed, situated activitiesthemselves, nor the heterogeneous actors,activities and artefacts in different contexts, thatare key, but their embeddedness in routinized repertoiresof strategy creation practices, which makesthem ‘strategic’. It is thus important to describe thefi rm-specifi c rituals, activities, settings, tools andprocesses in which strategy is created. Among thevarious contributions, the studies of metaphoricaldiscourses (Morgan 2006 ), discursive practices(Vaara et al . 2004 ), styles of engagement (Chia andMacKay 2007 ), micro-processes (Salvato 2003 ) or leadership practices (Denis et al . 2001 ) are exemplary.Thereby, it is important to understand howmanagers make use of their agency to shape theserepertoires of strategizing practices while creatingstrategic ‘agency’ through referencing to these repertoires(Balogun and Johnson 2004 ).The construction of strategy in practiceThe study of strategizing practices implies anemphasis on the situatedness of strategy creation(Tsoukas and Chia 2002 ). Strategy creation takesplace in concrete situations, it gains relevance andsignifi cance in those situations, and it must be interpretedin the perspective of these particular contexts.Hence, words and ideas, concepts and terms,including concepts of ‘strategy’, cannot be understoodindependently of the language games andlocal interactions in which they are produced andactualized (Seidl 2007 ). This implies that similaractivities have different meanings according to thecontexts in which they occur, as well as dependingon the particular perspectives of the actors involved(Engström and Blackler 2005 ; Samra-Fredericks2003 ; Suchman 1987 ).Therefore, the defi nition of what ‘strategy’means must be seen as idiosyncratic and processual(van de Ven 1993 ). There are phases in whichstrategy creation takes place according to establishedprocesses, which are taken for granted,while these processes, as well as related practices,are questioned, redefi ned, adapted and changed inother phases. This is in line with the research programmeof social construction , and in particular,the distinction between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.

Furthermore, there is a continuous interplaybetween established strategizing practicesand strategy concepts, and the implicit, informalstrategy -related creative activities of managers andother people in the organization. Over time, theseinteractions change and develop ‘agency’ of theirown (Burgelman 1996 ; Greenwood and Hinings1996 ; Mintzberg and McHugh 1985 ), a perspective,which resonates with systemic constructivism .The Strategy as Practice research programmemakes various suggestions with respect to the conceptualizationof ‘strategy’: in line with the idiosyncraticand situated nature of strategy practices strategy is associated with those practices andconcepts which are identifi ed as ‘strategic’ bythe actors themselves (Heracleous and Marshak2004 ; Maitlis 2005 ; Weick and Roberts 1993 );this perspective is in line with the research programmeof social construction . Certain predefi nedsets of practices are assumed as ‘strategic’ by theresearchers involved (Jarzabkowski 2003 ; Regnér2003 ), including coordination and decision making,planning and budgeting, the creation of episodes(Hendry and Seidl 2003 ) and the allocationof resources (Bower 1970 ; Bower and Gilbert2005 ). These are taken-for-granted concepts of‘strategy’ in strategy research. The fact that theseconcepts are taken for granted, but contingent,resonates with systemic constructivism. Finally,some practices are identifi ed as ‘strategic’ by theinstitutional context, both academic and managerial(Whittington 2007 ).The decisive activities in shaping the strategyof an organization can only be identifi ed ex post(Bower 1970 ; Burgelman 1994 ; Johnson 1987 ;Mintzberg and McHugh 1985 ; Pettigrew 1987 ); inline with the empirical programme of constructivism, this process of strategy creation can be studiedas resulting from circulating references, blackboxing and translation (Latour 1999 ; Callon 1986 ).While research in the area of strategic managementin most cases either pre-assumes that it is clearwhat ‘strategic’ means, or uses a particular conceptualizationof ‘strategy’, the Strategy as Practiceresearch programme emphasizes the importance ofunderstanding the construction of what ‘strategic’means in line with constructivist epistemologies .However, this implies that the concept of ‘strategy’is important enough to be refl ected in any strategyresearch project. Furthermore, it can becomea research area itself, leading to some fundamentalrefl ection of strategy research (Tsoukas andKnudsen 2002 ).The construction of strategyin strategy researchIt is on the methodological level where the Strategyas Practice research programme is most ambiguous.On the one hand, major perspectives in

this research programme emphasize the radical implications of the new research programme forthe conduct of strategy research (Johnson et al .2003 ; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002 ); on the otherhand, it is argued that a new research programmecan only succeed if it successfully relates to predominanttheories, methodologies and themes inexisting, established strategy research.While many scholars in the Strategy as Practiceresearch programme emphasize the importance offi rm-specifi c, idiosyncratic conceptualizations ofstrategy, and thus share constructivist epistemologies, other scholars try to reconcile the Strategy asPractice research programme with dominant, nonconstructiviststreams in the strategic managementfi eld in order to relate their research to taken-forgrantedconcepts of strategy. Strategizing practicesare related to strategy concepts like fi rm-level outcomes(competitive advantage, success) and intermediatereferences (performance of the strategyprocess); strategy practices are thus identifi ed asa source of competitiveness (Johnson et al . 2007 ).Organizational performance and realized strategyare studied as emerging from the situated strategicactivities and strategy practices (Bower and Gilbert2005 ; Johnson et al . 2007 ). The interdependenciesbetween research streams in strategic management(dynamic capabilities, strategic change, innovation)and Strategy as Practice research are explored(Paroutis and Pettigrew 2007 ; Regnér 2003 ); thisrequires us to reconcile existing theories in strategyand theories of social practice. Finally, the heterogeneityof activities, actors, actions and practices isincorporated into integrative frameworks (Bowerand Gilbert 2007 ; Floyd and Lane 2000 ; Johnsonet al . 2007 ).A fundamental ambiguity in the Strategy asPractice research programme becomes visiblein the perspective of constructivist epistemologies: through the emphasis on the idiosyncraticand constructed nature of strategizing ‘practices’,‘strategy’ and strategy ‘research’, this researchprogramme potentially or actually contradictstaken-for-granted premises of strategy researchand strategic management. By striving to reconcilethe two, Strategy as Practice research inevitablyneglects some of its most fundamentalpremises and contributions, and in particular, thesituatedness, path-dependence, idiosyncrasy and constructedness of strategy (Tsoukas and Knudsen2002 ; Chia and MacKay 2007 ).Implications of constructivistepistemologies for Strategyas Practice researchFrom the perspective of constructivist epistemologies, an alternative would be to transcend somefundamental oppositions which underlie the differentiationof Strategy as Practice as a new research

programme, and strategy research as it is understoodin dominant academic and managerial discourses(Johnson et al . 2007 ). In particular, fi vepoints are important:1. Strategy research should emphasize the importanceof constantly unpacking and deconstructingfundamental, taken-for-granted conceptsin strategy research and strategic management.Opening the black boxes, and disassemblingand reassembling strategy (Latour 2005 ) couldbe identifi ed as a primary focus. Obviously,this focus is ambiguous, as the pre-assumptionof unquestioned black boxes is a preconditionfor establishing a research programme, whilethe systematic deconstruction of central blackboxes is essential for the Strategy as Practiceresearch programme. However, it is this ambiguityof relying on and at the same time deconstructingstrategy-related black boxes whichensures the dynamism and creativity of thisresearch programme.2. In order to be able to disassemble the black box‘strategy’ and strategy-related black boxes, it isimportant to cultivate alienating perspectives(Latour 2005 ). One common pattern of constructivistepistemologies is exactly this alienatingeffect, which is often criticized as theusage of abstract vocabulary (Luhmann 2002 ;Latour 2005 ). However, this is central to theseresearch programmes, because they explicitlydo not build on common sense or everyday theorizingconcerning central concepts and terms.They introduce concepts and terms which mustgain meaning through their translation in particularcontexts and specifi c situations (Latour1999 ). Furthermore, this leads to an ongoing refl ection and reconstruction of concepts andterms in research practice.3. It is exactly the insistence on alienating perspectiveswhich at the same time creates aprecondition for being able to consider particularities,contexts and idiosyncrasies in empiricalresearch. A related approach in empiricalresearch is the attempt to exclude any theoreticalperspective and concept from the initialentry into the fi eld (Glaser and Strauss 1967 ).Obviously, both extremes, alienation throughabstraction and alienation through the absenceof abstract notions, are impossible to realizein research practice (Latour 1999 ). However,to take them as references leads to a continuousrefl ection of the premises and black boxes,which is important for any research programmein the perspective of constructivist epistemologies(Law 2004 ).4. This refl ection of research indicates thatresearch is creation and construction . Whereastraditional epistemologies discuss the inherentcreativity of research as a problem which

must rather be disciplined through particularmethodological tools, constructivist epistemologieswould, on the contrary, insist on thecentral importance of creativity for (good)research (Joas 1992 ). In this line of thought, theempirical programme of constructivism explicitlyemphasizes the importance of understandingmethodology as ‘discovery technologies’(Knorr Cetina 1989 ). Research methodologiesare understood as enabling, ensuring and fosteringcreativity in research practice (as it is discussedin the science studies; see Knorr Cetina2002 ).5. If research is interpreted as creation and construction,it must be enabled by particularmethodologies, technologies, practices of creationand construction (Knorr Cetina 1989 ).This implies that any closure of a research programme,any predefi nition of central conceptsand terms, or any unquestioned foundationof research on one particular theory must beunderstood as relying on black boxes (Latour1999 ). As we have discussed above, such blackboxes are necessary for research practice, but atthe same time they are always also inherently problematic (Elkana 1986 ); they are an expressionof a particular thought style and thoughtcommunity (Fleck 1980 ) which results fromparticular creation and construction processes.In the next section, we explore some implicationsof a constructivist epistemology for strategyresearch in general, as well as for the Strategy asPractice research programme in particular.Towards a constructivist researchprogramme in strategy researchIn the perspective of constructivist epistemologies ,strategy research would focus on the creation, construction,translation and transformation of strategyconcepts and strategizing practices . Thereby,it is important to study their self-evident, unquestionednature. Strategy and strategizing practicesare neither something strategy research can assumeas taken for granted, nor are they something that isonly situated. Strategy and strategizing practices arethe result of continuous (re-)construction, throughthe creative activities of the actors and researchersinvolved, and through interactions between actorsand researchers.The situated construction of strategyconcepts and strategizing practicesStrategy practices refer to taken-for-granted strategyconcepts. However, it is a situated, controversialand empirical issue to describe those strategyconcepts. Strategizing practices refer to different,fi rm-specifi c and general strategy concepts, andthey refer to multiple concepts in parallel, at thesame time, and over time. What is understood as‘strategic’ is changing across situations and over

time, and it must thus be (re-)created, actualizedand confi rmed in each situation. Although strategyconcepts and strategy practices are the resultof enactment, they are most of the time taken forgranted by the actors and researchers involved, andare thus experienced as ‘objectively’ given. Thisis a precondition for strategy making in organizations,because these self-evident references orient,stabilize and coordinate strategy-related activities. At the same time, every strategy concept is potentiallyquestioned and challenged, and replaced andtransformed by the actors and researchers involved.The heterogeneity of concepts and practices, andthe reduction and extension of this heterogeneityare therefore central issues. While heterogeneityenlarges the fl exibility of strategy, it increases theambiguity among those concepts and practices;while reducing the variety of concepts and practicesenables coordination, it introduces rigidity.In the perspective of a constructivist researchprogramme , the construction and deconstructionof strategy concepts and strategizing practices arestudied as simultaneously coexisting in strategymaking.A fundamental interest in strategy research is tounderstand whether, how and why particular strategyconcepts and strategizing practices relate to anyrealized strategy (Bower and Gilbert 2005 ), organizationalperformance or other outcomes (Johnsonet al . 2007 ). Thereby, a specifi c repertoire of conceptsand measures has been established as robustand relevant for studying performance, and forstudying performance differences among organizations(Barney 1991 ). However, it is importantto study dominating concepts of ‘realized’ strategyand ‘performance’ as they are defi ned in aparticular situation and context (Pettigrew 1987 ).Furthermore, to study the strategic references andmeasurement systems for performance is important,because they have an impact on the identification of strategizing practices evaluating the‘strategic relevance’ of planning and budgeting,and of particular meetings and workshops, conceptsand issues.A constructivist research programme brings thecontingency of strategy concepts and strategizingpractices, and the uncertainty and ambiguityof related concepts of performance to the centreof research. Thereby, strategic management as anacademic discipline, research fi eld, teaching areaand managerial practice has an impact on the contextualizationand change, and stabilization anddestabilization of particular defi nitions and conceptualizations,both within particular organizations,as well as for relevant communities. Theinteraction and refl exive relationship between theconstruction of strategy in managerial practice and the construction of strategy in strategy research

is a central precondition for conducting strategyresearch (Tsoukas 2005 ).Uncertainty, strategy concepts andstrategizing practicesStrategy is conceptualized as crucial for successfulorganizational development in future-oriented,fundamentally uncertain, contested and open situations(Schendel and Hitt 2007 ). It is in those situationsin which it is challenging, but important, tobuild and stabilize strategy concepts and strategizingpractices as taken for granted and self-evident(Gomez and Jones 2000 ). Binding concepts of performanceand success, established repertoires ofprocedures and methods, and unquestioned tasksand issues are central for productive, coordinatedstrategy making under uncertainty and ambiguity.They are necessary to conclude endless discussionsabout the appropriate conceptualization of‘strategy’ and infi nite regresses of defi ning suchreferences as ‘success’ and ‘performance’.Paradoxically, taken-for-granted referencesmust be stabilized as given, knowing that they arecontingent and potentially questionable. This isin line with a constructivist research programmewhich focuses on the dynamic interplay of confirming and transforming, routinizing and deconstructing,and actualizing and revising strategicreferences. The ‘practice turn’ in the social sciencesemphasizes promising perspectives here,including the concepts of: routines as routinization(Feldman 2003 ); habitus as the embodied repertoireof practices, which defi ne whether someoneis part of a particular community (Bourdieu 1977 );structuration as the continuous confi rmation andadaptation of action patterns (Giddens 1984 );black boxing as the activities and artefacts, whichtranslate and transform situated ideas into stablereferences (Latour 1999 ); conventions as a way ofunderstanding the constructive, but unquestionednature of the references (Boltanski and Thevenot1991 ; Gomez and Jones 2000 ); and common knowledge,which results from the collective objectivationand typifi cation of embedded experiences andsituated interactions (Berger and Luckmann 1967 ;Wenger 1998 ). A constructivist research programme in strategyresearch can relate to existing research onorganizational processes and managerial activitiesunder uncertainty and ambiguity: theseactivities are described as situated and local,embedded and contextual, specifi c and taskoriented, focused and operational (Mintzberg1971 ). However, various empirical patterns canbe identifi ed, including the observation thatdecision-making under uncertainty and ambiguityis proactive and assertive (March and Shapira1987 ), involving experimenting (Gherardi andNicolini 2002 ), continuous sensemaking (Gioiaand Chittipeddi 1991 ; Weick 1995 ) and framing

and interpretation (Bower and Gilbert 2005 ).Thereby, actors and organizations anticipate thefact that they must react to and work in the contextof unexpected events and new situations (Weickand Sutcliffe 2001 ). While most strategy researchemphasizes the importance of considering theuncertainty of strategy making (Porter 1985 ), itbuilds on epistemological and theoretical perspectives,which are often not really sensitive touncertainty (Grand et al . 1999 ). A constructivistresearch programme demonstrates the implicationsof taking the openness of the future and itsinherent uncertainty seriously .The stabilization of strategy conceptsand strategizing practicesTalking about self-evident strategy concepts andunquestioned strategizing practices does not meanthat they are ‘stable’, but are seen as ‘stabilized’.As has been shown (Garfi nkel 2002 ), facts or concepts,insights or routines, have to be confi rmed,actualized and reproduced anew in every situation(Feldman and Pentland 2003 ). By understandingstrategies and strategizing as resulting from theenactment of these practices and routines by themultiple situated activities of the people involved,the focus lies on how managers and other peoplein the organization create and construct the stability,coherence and robustness of a strategy(Westley 1990 ). At the same time, it reminds us ofits contingency and fragility. It is thus importantto understand how taken-for-granted strategy conceptsand strategizing practices are constructed and stabilized by the managers and other peopleinvolved in strategy making.To transcend the contingency and situatedness oftaken-for-granted references, they must be stabilizedand anchored as self-evident and unquestionable.In this context, the practice turn provides importantperspectives, conceptualizing construction and stabilizationas discourse formation (Foucault 1978 ),language games (Wittgenstein 1967 ), circulatingreferences (Latour 1999 ) or translation activities(Callon 1986 ). Thereby, dispersed strategy-relatedactivities are coordinated and aligned in the organizationand, over time, due to the formation ofshared expectations and ‘objectivized’ interpretations,tools and methods are recognized as relevantfor strategy making. Thereby, practice communitiesnot only actualize and confi rm the repertoiresand routines of strategy making, but construct andconstitute their identity as those who make strategy(Brown and Duguid 2001 ); furthermore, theemphasis on the importance of a ‘porte parole’points to the fact that the ability to construct realitydepends on the power position of the respectiveactor and action (Bourdieu 1982 ); fi nally, thematerial culture of strategy making is emphasized,including the artefacts, tools, methods and techniquesof strategy making (Knorr Cetina 1999 ;

Latour 1999 ). They condense repertoires of strategymaking in the form of templates and analyticaltools, ways of presentation and representation, andvisualization and documentation (Orlikowski 2000,2002).The multiple strategy tools, strategic frameworksand strategizing methods in an organizationare an expression of multiple ways of packagingand focusing strategy concepts and strategizingpractices; the same holds for the multiple frameworks,concepts, methods and models in strategyresearch, which are an expression of different waysof conceptualizing strategy. Thereby, it has beensuggested (Latour and Woolgar 1986; Orlikowski2000 ) that technologies, artefacts, symbols, toolsand instruments have their own agency . They transformstrategy concepts and argumentative patternsinto stabile structures and tangible references,which are used by the managers and researchersinvolved. In the perspective of a constructivistresearch programme , to study strategy making implies to describe and refl ect the constructiontechnologies (Knorr Cetina 1989) which managersand researchers use to create, establish, maintainand change particular strategy concepts and strategizingpractices.The deconstruction of strategy conceptsand strategizing practicesIn the perspective of a constructivist research programme, it is fi nally important to understand howtaken-for-granted references are deconstructed andquestioned, and creatively enacted and reassembled(Grand and McLean 2007 ; Joas 1992 ). In particular,this includes a conceptualization of strategy inthe perspective of the creativity of action (Grandand McLean 2007 ; Joas 1992 ), situated action(Suchman 1987 ), symbolic interaction (Goffman1971 ) and interpretative fl exibility (Callon 1986 ).It is important that strategy research considers thiscreativity in strategizing and the distinctive formsof how this happens in practice fi elds (Tsoukas andKnudsen 2002 ). This creative reinvention of strategypractices explains why taken-for-granted referencesand practices shift and transform themselvesacross situations and over time (Joas 1992 ). Storiesand repertoires, and tools and artefacts, referringto strategy are never unambiguous; they have to bereinterpreted in any new situation. In the perspectiveof a constructivist research programme , thiscan be seen as one source of creativity, innovationand strategic renewal in strategy making.Another driver for the deconstruction of unquestionedstrategy concepts and strategy practices ischanging contexts (Pettigrew 1987 ). Whereas strategyprocess research often predefi nes and conceptualizescontexts in general terms, it is important toconsider contexts as they are continuously enactedby the actors themselves. Thereby, given strategies

and strategizing practices are deconstructedand reinterpreted, and translated and transformed.The idiosyncrasies in each context, as well as thesituated improvisations of each person involved,lead to the invention of new strategic concepts andstrategizing activities. Over time, these new conceptsand activities become objectivized new conceptsand practices which transcend the individualsituation and context. Finally, entrepreneurial and managerial activities themselves challenge andrefl ect the appropriateness of established strategiesand practices, either in formalized or informalways and settings. Thus, the deconstruction of thecurrent strategy itself is enacted and shaped by particularstrategizing practices.This indicates an important methodological andepistemological starting point for the empiricalstudy of strategy concepts and strategizing practices.It is fundamental to open the central blackboxes of the strategy fi eld, instead of accepting andpre-assuming their taken-for-granted nature in anorganization and in strategy research. In the perspectiveof a constructivist research programme ,epistemologies, theories and methodologies havethe essential role of enabling the study of the creationand construction, as well as deconstructionand transformation, of these black boxes. It is aprogramme to foster stability and instability, creationand destruction, and action and refl ection instrategy making and strategy research .ConclusionsA constructivist research programme in strategyresearch implies the development of alienating perspectives.Although constructivist epistemologiesdiffer in their premises, they share a scepticismagainst anything which is just taken for granted,self-evident and unquestioned (Hacking 1999 ). Atthe same time, more recent perspectives in theseepistemologies share an in-depth understanding ofthe importance of taken-for-granted, self-evident,unquestioned references, concepts and practicesfor robust managerial action and scientifi c research,given the fundamental uncertainty and ambiguityin these contexts (Gomez and Jones 2000 ).In parallel to a call for theories of creativeaction to advance the conduct of strategy research(Tsoukas and Knudsen 2002 ), we plead for theadvancement of a constructivist research programmefor strategy research. In essence, thisimplies the following points. First, this impliesa research focus on the creation and constructionactivities of the actors studied (Joas 1992 ), inrelation to the construction activities of strategyresearch itself (Knorr Cetina 2002 ); second, this implies an emphasis on the creative and constructivenature of research , which is in line with earliermethodological perspectives (Glaser and Strauss1967 ); third, this implies a focus on the ambiguity

of taken-for-granted references , which at the sametime are essential for action under uncertainty,and are always potentially problematic (Thevenot2006 ); fourth, both managers and researchersrequire discovery technologies . These are methodologiesand theories, and concepts and tools,which support the deconstruction and reconstructionof the self-evident (Knorr Cetina 1989 ; Latour2005 ). In this view, one central criterion for evaluating‘good’ research and ‘good’ management isthe ability to create new perspectives on what wetake for granted (Weick 1989 ).