Abstract

Empirical studies of strategizing face contradictory pressures.
\nEthnographic approaches are attractive, and typically expected since we need to
\ncollect data on strategists and their practices within context. We argue, however, that
\ntoday’s large, multinational, and highly diversified organizational settings require
\ncomplimentary methods providing more breadth and flexibility. This paper discusses
\nthree particularly promising approaches (interactive discussion groups, self-reports,
\nand practitioner-led research) that fit the increasingly disparate research paradigms
\nnow being used to understand strategizing and other management issues. Each of
\nthese approaches is based on the idea that strategizing research cannot advance
\nsignificantly without reconceptualizing frequently taken-for-granted assumptions
\nabout the way to do research and the way we engage with organizational
\nparticipants. The paper focuses in particular on the importance of working with
\norganizational members as research partners rather than passive informants.