Taking Historical Embeddedness Seriously: Three Historical Approaches to Advance Strategy Process and Practice Research
Taking Historical Embeddedness Seriously: Three Historical Approaches to Advance Strategy Process and Practice Research
复制标题
认真对待历史嵌入：推进战略过程和实践研究的三种历史方法
DOI：
10.5465/amr.2014.0172
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
16.4
通讯作者：
Juha
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Vaara;Juha
尽管对战略过程和实践的研究越来越多，但我们对战略过程和实践的历史嵌入性缺乏认识。在本文中，我们提出了三种具有弥补这一缺陷潜力的历史方法。首先，现实主义历史有助于更好地理解战略进程的历史嵌入性；特别是，比较历史分析可以阐明战略过程中的历史条件、机制和因果关系。其次，解释性历史可以增加我们对战略实践的历史嵌入性的认识，而微观历史可以特别帮助我们理解这些实践在历史背景下的构建和制定。第三，后结构主义史学可以阐明战略话语的历史嵌入性，而系谱学尤其可以加深我们对战略话语的演变、转化及其权力效应的理解。因此，本文论证了历史方法和方法如何以其特定的方式帮助我们理解战略过程和实践的不同形式和变化、组织战略的历史建构以及战略机构的历史构成。
Despite the proliferation of strategy process and practice research, we lack understanding of the historical embeddedness of strategic processes and practices. In this paper, we present three historical approaches with the potential to remedy this deficiency. First, realist history can contribute to a better understanding of the historical embeddedness of strategic processes; in particular, comparative historical analysis can explicate the historical conditions, mechanisms, and causality in strategic processes. Second, interpretative history can add to our knowledge of the historical embeddedness of strategic practices, and microhistory can specifically help to understand the construction and enactment of these practices in historical contexts. Third, poststructuralist history can elucidate the historical embeddedness of strategic discourses, and genealogy can in particular increase our understanding of the evolution and transformation of strategic discourses and their power effects. Thus, this paper demonstrates how in their specific ways historical approaches and methods can add to our understanding of different forms and variations of strategic processes and practices, the historical construction of organizational strategies, and historically constituted strategic agency.