Use of mixed methodologies

Mixed method research combines quantitative and qualitative research methods (Bryman, 2012). This section describes the rationale for such an approach in this research and section 3.4 describes the methods used.

The spanning of micro, meso and macro levels is one of the features that defines and differentiates practice theory (Nicolini, 2012); “Understanding and representing practice requires a reiteration of two basic movements: zooming in on the accomplishments of

practice, and zooming out of their relationships in space and time.” (Nicolini, 2012, p. 213).

The spanning of levels has the potential to explain macro and meso level phenomena, such as the emergence of new strategies, via the observation of micro level activities, such as the unplanned social interactions between unintentionally strategic agents. However, the previous chapter highlighted that the attempt to span levels of analysis also comes with the danger of methodological individualism where macro and meso outcomes are simply understood as aggregations of micro activities. The selection of methodologies that enable

the spanning of levels, without suffering the problems of methodological individualism is one of the main challenges for this research.

There are three fundamental units of analysis: space, social interaction and emergent strategy. All three are of interest at both a meso and micro level as described in table 3.1. In general, the methods typically used in SaP research, of observation, interview and participation, have been qualitative in nature (Laamanen et al., 2015). Qualitative methods are particularly good at ‘zooming in’ to micro details such as the fleeting moments of social interaction that make emergent strategy possible (Chia and MacKay, 2007). It is qualitative methods that have the potential to identify emergent strategy making in action and thereby overcome the problem of retrospective attribution (Rasche and Chia, 2009).

The use of quantitative methods in SaP research is far less common but has great potential to generate novel insights in the field (Laamanen et al., 2015). Quantitative methods are particularly good at ‘zooming out’ to establish patterns of practice (Browne et al., 2014). Laamanen et. al. (2015) identify the quantitative methods of network analysis as being of specific interest to SaP research: “network analysis constitutes a fascinating avenue for future strategy-as-practice research. It offers several important advantages that can help scholars

push the boundaries of our understanding of strategy formation in organisations” (Laamanen

et al., 2015, p. 529). For the purposes of this research, two of the key advantages of a network

analysis are: first, that it overcomes the problem of methodological individualism (Padgett and Powell, 2012) and second that network analysis provides the potential to understand strategy making in a socio-spatial context without either social analysis or spatial analysis dominating. Laamanen et.al. express the potential of network analysis in supporting research that does not over emphasise the social aspects of strategy making in the following way:

“network analysis constitutes one important way for conceptualising the possibilities of

strategic influence and agency, thereby mediating between both over-socialised and under-

socialised accounts of actorhood” (Laamanen et al., 2015, p. 528). The problem of placing too

much emphasis on either space or social analysis has already been highlighted in the literature review.

Table 3.1: Zooming in and zooming out

Emergent Strategy Social Interaction Physical Space

Meso ‘Zooming Out’ Changing patterns of action in matters of strategic importance to the organisation. Successes and failures important to strategic outcomes for the organisation. Trends in financial performance. Profile of interaction at an organisational level: cumulative frequency and duration of planned and unplanned interactions, intra- departmental, inter- departmental and with visitors. Patterns of spatial configuration in use by an organisation (i.e. the degree to which desks or breakout areas are integrated or segregated in the building as a whole) Micro ‘Zooming In’ Emergent strategy in action: the decisions and actions that contribute to organisational level patterns of action The fleeting, seemingly inconsequential, unintentionally strategic social interactions that make emergent strategy possible The locations of everyday organisational activity (i.e. desks, kitchens, corridors, breakout areas and meeting rooms)

A hybrid methodology that combines quantitative data that ‘zooms out’ to help understand complex patterns in socio-spatial structures and qualitative data to ‘zoom in’ to micro level practices of emergent strategy making is considered to “hold major potential in the field of SaP research” (Laamanen et al., 2015, p. 521).

Specifically, the adoption of mixed methods in this research programme has two specific objectives. The first is that mixed methods have the potential to provide a more complete

answer to the research question, the second is to maintain the sense of process to the practice of strategy making (Bryman, 2012).

Quantitative methods are good at helping understand the complex relationships between socio-spatial structure and interaction but will leave a gap in understanding the emergence of strategy. The qualitative methods will help fill that gap and thereby provide a more complete answer to the question ‘how does physical space influence emergent strategy?’ In addition, the quantification of socio-spatial structures will represent a snap-shot of the social life in the organisation studied at a point in time. The danger is that this will tend to represent relationships as static whereas strategy making is necessarily dynamic in nature. Adding qualitative descriptions of strategy making in action aims to maintain a processual perspective to an investigation into strategy making.