elos: -!Fuera!

Having introduced the main characteristics of SaP, a general overview of different theoretical perspective within SaP is beneficial as these approaches are influenced by different strands of practice theory (Suddaby et al. 2013). Seidl and Whittington (2014) propose an interesting and clear overview of different theoretical practice perspectives in SaP which offer a theorization by linking local praxis to larger practices. This review results in identifying six significant theoretical SaP perspectives which include: Foucauldian perspective (Foucault 1980; 1984), Giddensian structuration theory (Giddens 1984), Archer’s (Archer 1982; 1995) critical realism, narratology, Bourdieusian perspective (Bourdieu 1977; 1990; 1998), and Wittgenstein’s (1951) language game concept. Figure 3.1 below summarises them in a diagram which offers a clear overview of these SaP perspectives by positioning them along two axes: the vertical axis indicates the tendency of theories towards a taller or flatter ontology, whereas the horizontal axis indicates their main empirical focus.

51

Figure 3.1 Diagram of theoretical perspective in SaP research (Seidl & Whittington 2014).

The Foucauldian perspective focuses on an historical and macro-level analysis of discourse, particularly identifying “the power effects of the strategy discourse” (Seidl & Whittington 2014, p. 1409). In Figure 3.1 it is placed on the top left of the diagram as it is characterised by a tall ontology and it is more concerned with “sayings”, that is to say, discourse analysis. Another theoretical perspective characterised by a tall ontology is critical realism (top right) in which a clear distinction between macro-structures and micro-activities is highlighted as identifying two separate entities (see e.g. Herepath 2014). These two perspectives focus on the macro-structures and offer analyses which, in the first case, do not consider the micro- activities and praxis in shaping strategy, and, in the second case, target the social world to understand the complexities of structures which cause facts and events. Hence, the Foucauldian perspective, being a tall ontology, does not provide a focus on praxis in terms of activities and collaborative strategizing among actors; whereas, according to Herepath (2014), critical realism does not assume any linkage between macro and micro. However, this research will analyse how macro practices and micro activities connect, for example, how innovation strategies coming from the top management of the construction firm are

52

translated and shaped in different settings through collaboration between the firm and the supply chain.

Narratology aims to analyse narratives, such as the micro-stories of managers or other actors as they interact during daily working activities aimed at making strategy (Fenton & Langley 2011). This theoretical perspective is positioned in the higher part of the diagram as micro and macro narratives “get layered on the top of each other” (Seidl & Whittington 2014, p. 1411). Indeed, people’s stories can be influenced by institutionalised macro-strategy drawn by the organisation’s vision (Deuten & Rip 2000). Below this perspective, Seidl positions Wittgenstein and language theories.

Seidl (2007) draws on Wittgenstein and argues that strategy should be considered as “a network or ecology of different language games regulating the proper use of strategy language” (p. 209). In this context, the link between the local and the social is found in the “structural coupling between different language games” (Seidl & Whittington 2014, p. 1412). This perspective is strictly concerned with communication and text analysis. Hence, narratology mainly concerns narrations, that is, an analysis based on a story coming from, for example, people’s interviews, whereas Wittgenstein’s language theory is strictly focused on text analysis. These theories would not benefit the analysis of this research since, for example, the material role of technology in influencing strategizing is not considered.

The interest in strategy as discourse has increased in recent years, and an increasing number of researches are focused on the linguistic nature of strategizing and the ways in which language shapes strategy. SaP has been linked to studies which examine different forms of interactions “through a discursive lens”. This research highlights that strategists make important use of discourse through narrative, rhetoric, and metaphor, or through discursive activities such as justifying, legitimating and naturalising (Vaara & Tienari 2002; Hardy & Thomas 2014) when they are strategizing. Silverman (1997) highlights the importance of recording events as it is the only mean to understand how people are shaping the setting through their conversation. This analysis can also establish “linkages” between micro (e.g. human interaction, conversations, etc.) and macro (e.g. social structures, markets, etc.).

Seidl and Whittington (2014) locate the Bourdieusian perspective and Giddensian structuration theory in the middle-top right of the diagram. According to the first perspective, strategists’ dispositions (“habitus”) to develop strategies are influenced by the

53

cultural and social environment in which they are embedded. Micro (the individual) and macro (the society) appear to be “flattened” (Chia & MacKay 2007). Giddensian theory emphasises the role of “management practices-in-use” (Jarzabkowski 2004). Since strategists reflectively deploy, in their micro-activities, strategizing practices, such as particular techniques and tools, it can be argued that the macro-level influences activities on the micro-level, and at the same time, local praxis modifies practice on the macro level. For example, Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) considered strategy meetings as social practices which have the power to influence the strategy activities within an organisation.

The main advantages of the taller ontologies lie in the fact that a clear macro-theory can explore power and causality and increase the significance of local praxis, enabling SaP analyses to make a broader critique considering more sites with similar structures. The interconnection between macro and micro is important to contextualise practices in praxis and praxis in practices. Indeed, in this study, the interconnections between top-down strategies and strategizing in a specific everyday setting is important to grasp as collaborative activities are shaped directly by actors.

Flatter ontologies represent networks of actors who can be both humans and non- humans. In this group, Seidl and Whittington (2014) locate ANT and Schatzki’s (2002) interpretation of practice theory. The focus is on different empirical sites where activities are enacted. By looking at Seidl’s diagram, ANT is placed more in the “doings” because of the consideration on non-humans, whereas Schatzki’s is placed right in the middle between “doings” and “sayings”. Hence, a SaP perspective, following a flatter ontology, should focus on the actors and analyse what they “do” together in different contexts (Seidl & Whittington 2014).

Therefore, my theoretical approach combining SaP and ANT would mean that a strong focus would be given to the actors (human and non-human) as the main actants of collaborative strategizing in interconnected networks. In order to answer the research questions whose purpose is to analyse the collaborative context in which the organisations collaborate with technology, the aim is to follow the actors in different organisational settings where collaboration and implementation of innovation unfold. This can give a perspective from the bottom of an organisation of how strategy is built directly from the actors. Being this research based in the construction industry, a review of previous studies in this context drawing on SaP is required.

54