Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T00:38:24.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy

from Part I - Ontological and Epistemological Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

By
Wanda J. Orlikowski
Edited by
Damon Golsorkhi ,
Linda Rouleau ,
David Seidl  and
Eero Vaara
Wanda J. Orlikowski
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management
Damon Golsorkhi
Affiliation:
Grenoble School of Management
Linda Rouleau
Affiliation:
HEC Montréal
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Eero Vaara
Affiliation:
Svenska Handelshögskolan, Helsinki
Get access

Summary

The focus on practice in management studies – and the strategy field more specifically – is a recent and important development in what organizational scholars pay attention to and how. Reflecting the more general social-theoretic ‘practice turn’ (Ortner 1984; Schatzki, Knorr Cetina and von Savigny 2001; Reckwitz 2002), this development is diverse and dynamic, expressing both a range of approaches and a set of emerging possibilities (Gherardi 2006; Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Molloy 2007; Postill 2010; Whittington 2006). Schatzki (2001a: 4) argues that, given the broad array of interpretations and interests, the most effective notion of practice may be in its framing and orienting of research. It is in this spirit of exploring various ways of structuring practice research that I offer the discussion below, and not to propose or defend any particular conception or appropriation of practice ideas.

In what follows, I want to distinguish three modes of engaging with practice in research, and highlight some of their attending entailments. I then discuss some of the challenges and implications associated with taking practice seriously in studies of organizations. Throughout this commentary, I will draw on illustrations from the arena of organizational research that I am most familiar with: technology studies. These examples should offer some useful analogies and applications for strategy-as-practice research, in which parallel considerations and formations are evident.

Modes of engaging practice in research

I find it useful to differentiate between the different ways that the notion of practice has been attended to in the management literature (including the strategy-as-practice literature). These variations arise as a result of differences in the locus of researchers’ attention and the logic of their inquiry. Three modes of engaging practice in research are evident. The first mode emphasizes practice as a phenomenon – the notion that what is most important in organization research is understanding what happens ‘in practice’, as opposed to what is derived or expected from ‘theory’; the second mode advocates practice as a perspective – the articulation of a practice-centred theory about some aspect of organizations; and the third mode highlights the notion of practice as a philosophy – the commitment to an ontology that posits practice as constitutive of all social reality, including organizational reality.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice , pp. 33 - 43
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. (1985), Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2003), ‘Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter’, Signs, 28/3: 801–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K. (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R., and Kunda, G. (2006), Gurus, Hired Guns, and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (2001), ‘Practice as collective action’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 17–28. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartunek, J. M., and Louis, M. R. (1996), Insider/Outsider Team Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baskerville, R., and Myers, M. D. (2004), ‘Foreword to special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice’, MIS Quarterly, 28/3: 329–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (1991), ‘Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation’, Organization Science, 2/1: 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994), Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burawoy, M. (1979), Manufacturing Consent: Changes in Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Button, G. (ed.) (1993), Technology in Working Order: Studies in Work, Interaction and Technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. (1999), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ciborra, C. (2002), The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Certeau, M. (1984), The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dourish, P., and Button, G. (1998), ‘On “technomethodology”: foundational relationships between ethnomethodology and system design’, Human–Computer Interaction, 13/4: 395–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103/2: 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011), ‘Theorizing practice and practicing theory’, Organization Science, 22/5: 1240–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gasser, L. (1986), ‘The integration of computing and routine work’, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4/3: 205–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. (2006), Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1993), New Rules of Sociological Method, Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kling, R. (1991), ‘Computerization and social transformations’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16/3: 342–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr Cetina, K. (2001), ‘Objectual practice’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 175–88. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988), Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J., and Singelton, V. (2000), ‘Performing technology's stories: on social constructivism, performance and performativity’, Technology and Culture, 41/4: 765–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J., and Urry, J. (2004), ‘Enacting the social’, Economy and Society, 33/3: 390–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1946), ‘Action research and minority problems’, Journal of Social Issues, 2/4: 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., and Heath, C. (eds.) (2000), Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2001), ‘Ethnomethodology and the logic of practice’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 131–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2002), The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, E. (2007), ‘Practice theory and management research’, in Thorpe, R., and Holt, R. (eds.), The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research: 163–5. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mumford, E., and Hensall, D. (1979), Participative Approaches to Computer Systems Design. London: Associated Design Press.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992), ‘The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations’, Organization Science, 3/3: 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996), ‘Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective’, Information Systems Research, 7/1: 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), ‘Using technology and constituting structures’. Organization Science, 11/4: 404–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. E. (1996), Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Ortner, S. B. (1984), ‘Theory in anthropology since the sixties’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26/1: 126–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (1995), The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (2001), ‘Practice and posthumanism: social theory and a history of agency’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 163–74. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Postill, J. (2010), ‘Introduction: theorising media and practice’, in Bräuchler, B., and Postill, J. (eds.), Theorising Media and Practice: 1–32. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. K., and Pruitt, B. H. (2002), Beyond Work–Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002), ‘Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5/2: 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, J. (1996), Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (2001), ‘Two concepts of practices’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 189–98. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., and Daft, R. L. (2001), ‘Across the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics’, Academy of Management Journal, 44/2: 340–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, P. (1995), ‘Transforming work: collaboration, learning, and design’, Communications of the ACM, 38/9: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2001a), ‘Introduction: practice theory’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 1–14. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2001b), ‘Practice mind-ed orders’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 42–55. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (2005), ‘The sites of organizations’, Organization Studies, 26/3: 465–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.) (2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1987), The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1999), Process Consultation Revisited. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1987), Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (2007), Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swidler, A. (2001), ‘What anchors cultural practices’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 74–92. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1985), Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. J. (1994), What Machines Can't Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (1998), ‘The word and the world: a critique of representationalism in management research’, International Journal of Public Administration, 21/5: 781–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. (2001), ‘Throwing out the tacit rule book: learning and practices’, in Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., and von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory: 120–30. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., and Johnson, P. E. (2006), ‘Knowledge for theory and practice’, Academy of Management Review, 31/4: 802–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, R. (2006), ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’, Organization Studies, 27/5: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991), Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×