Abstract
Almost since its foundation, the field of strategic management has been traversed by concerns about fragmentation and disorganization. Complaints surface regularly about lack of focus (Hambrick, 2004; Hoskisson et al., 1999), inconsistency in definitions of key constructs (Nag et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2013; Ronda-Pupo and Guerras-Martin, 2012), and chaotic theory proliferation that tends to limit scientific progress (Hoskisson et al., 1999; Carlson and Hatfield, 2004; Oxley et al., 2010). An obsession with novelty and the neglect of systematic theory testing and replication have been identified as contributing factors to this state of affairs (Hambrick, 2004; Oxley et al., 2010; Mezias and Regnier, 2007). At the same time, others have welcomed the diversity of the field that fits with its interdisciplinary subject matter (Mintzberg et al., 2005). Still others (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2013) have argued, contrary to the above, that management scholars in general, and by implication strategy scholars as well, have engaged in too much incremental research, and that they need to devote more attention to problematizing received views rather than reproducing or tweaking them.
Whatever the case, a key question question arises: How might the strategic management field be better organized to allow scholarly progress. Here progress refers to the advancement of knowledge, be it by deepening understanding through filling in the gaps within existing theoretical paradigms (Hambrick, 2004; Oxley et al., 2010), or by moving the field in productive new directions that generate significantly better explanations, rather than merely relabeling and reshuffling existing concepts to create the illusion of novelty without its substance. The three So!apbox essays that follow are attempts to address this central question.
The first two essays by Michael Barrett and Richard Arend were originally submitted independently, but the co-editors immediately saw that they were both dealing with the central theme of the strategic organization of strategic management scholarship, though from different perspectives. While Barrett focuses more on the problem of unifying the field and deepening existing paradigms (through formal roadmaps and a “Theories of Management Catalog”), Arend urges recognition of competing assumptions and research purposes and the formalization of an implicit divide within the field allowing alternate schools of thought or “camps” to progress untrammeled. The third essay from Andreas Schwab and Bill Starbuck complements beautifully the other two with an alternative model (the “collegial nest”), oriented this time towards more grass-roots community developments that have potential to reorient the field in significant ways while enabling scholars within each community to constructively build on each others’ work. The three essays together offer different but provocative ideas about the strategic organization of strategic management scholarship. We hope you enjoy them and we invite you to engage with the debate.
More generally, we welcome So!apbox essay submissions that contribute interesting, well-argued, provocative and forward-looking ideas on substantive issues of interest to the field, or as in the case of the three essays in this issue, about the strategic organization of the field itself. For more information, please contact one of the co-editors with your initial ideas.