Joumal of Management Studies 31:4 July 1994

0022-2380

FIELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY BUILDING AND TESTING*

CHARLES C . SNOW
JAMES B . THOMAS

The Pennsylvania State University

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the contributions that field methods have made to the
theory-development process in strategic management. Field studies drawn from
the literature are classified according to their research goal (description, explana-
tion, or prediction) and according to whether they built or tested theory. The
overall conclusion is that field research methods will continue to be used heavily
to develop strategy theory. However, certain conditions must be met to maximize
the contribution of field methods to strategy research. These conditions include a
balanced research agenda, muldfaceted research approaches, innovative data-
gathering techniques, and an applied futuristic orientation.

INTRODUCTION

Strategic management theory has drawn from a variety of disciplines, including

industrial organization economics, marketing, finance and administrative beha-
viour (Biggadike, 1981; Jemison, 1981; Lubatkin and Shrieves, 1986; Porter,
1981). Each of these disciplines has its own paradigm, units of analysis, assump-
tions, and research biases. Given this disciplinary diversity, it is not surprising
that theory development in Strategic Management relies on a broad array of
research methods. As an organizational science, the tools available to strategic
management research include field methods (case studies, surveys, etc.), experi-
ments, computerized data bases (e.g. PIMS, Compustat), simulations, and combi-
nations of various approaches (cf. Schwenk and Dalton, 1991). Perhaps because
the early strategy literature was dominated by case studies (e.g. Chandler, 1962;
Learned et al., 1965), and because of the field's traditionally applied nature, field
methods have dominated the development of the empirical literature in strategic
management (Shrivastava and Lim, 1989).
Field studies are those which involve real managers and organizations as con-
trasted with ad hoc groups or organizations that are created and studied in the
laboratory (Scott, 1965). As shown in figure 1, field research methods can,
perhaps more than any other method, realistically examine strategic processes

Address for reprints: Cbarles C. Snow, Tbe Pennsylvania State University, Tbe Smeal College of Busi-
ness Administration, Dept. of Management and Organization, 411 Beam Business Administration
Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

© Basil BlackweU Ltd 1994. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 lJF, UK
and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
458 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

and outcomes - that is, they provide mechanisms for observing strategists and
organizations in their natural settings. In strategic management, field studies have
taken many forms, including single and comparative case studies, surveys, simu-
lations, and natural experiments. Sample sizes have ranged from the single case
to several hundred observations, and the unit of analysis has spanned the indivi-
dual decision-maker, the top management team, a business unit of a firm, and a
global corporation.
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we discuss the contributions made
by field research methods to the development of theory in strategic management.
This is done by presenting a framework for classifying field studies by their (a)
purpose {description, explanation or prediction), and (b) focus (on theory building or
testing). Second, after identifying major trends in the literature, we discuss the
capacity of field methods to make further contributions to theory development.
The article is divided into three major sections. The first section classifies the
field methods commonly used in strategic management research and provides
examples of each method drawn from the literature. The contributions field
methods have made to theory building and testing are discussed in the second
section. The third section presents recommendations concerning the role of field
methods in future strategic management research.

TYPES OF EIELD METHODS

Field studies in strategic management have used a variety of research methods,

sometimes in combination (e.g. interviews coupled with direct or participant
observation). As shown in figure 1, these methods vary considerably in terms of
their measurement accuracy and their capacity to capture the reality of organiza-
tions. The most uncontrollable form of field inquiry is direct or participant observatio
where the researcher observes the behaviour of organizational actors, usually
over an extended period of time. Interviewing also allows for in-depth examination
of phenomena, but data are gathered through discussions with informants rather
than at first hand. Observation and interviewing are usually considered to be the
main tools of the social science field investigator (McGrath, 1964). However, the
questionnaire survey is an efficient, albeit less flexible, substitute for observation or
interviewing that is frequently utilized by strategy researchers. Hence, it too can
be classified as a field method. Lastly, a few strategy investigators have used simu-
lations or field experiments as the basis of their research (e.g. Cosier and Aplin, 1980;
Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984; Venkatraman and Zaheer, 1990).
We believe that strategic management field studies, though heterogeneous, can
be categorized into five major types based primarily on data-collection technique.
Table I presents a listing of the types, along with illustrative studies. Although the
vast majority of strategy studies can be accurately classified according to this
scheme, certain kinds of studies pose classification problems. For example, though
the PIMS data base is questionnaire-based, most researchers who use the data
base were not involved in the construction, assessment, or ongoing use of the
questionnaire. Therefore, the typical PIMS study is primarily a statistical analysis
of secondary data. Alternatively, questionnaires administered to managers who
were attending executive development programmes (e.g. Chakravarthy, 1987)
© BasU Blackwell Ltd 1994
 FIELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 459

Highly realistic, Direct and participant observation

uncontrolled
Interview
Field
methods
Questionnaire survey

Arcbival analysis

Computer Researcher accesses information collected by

data bases others

Researcher tries to create a realistic facsimile of

Experimental
a situation, sets it in motion, and observes its
simulations bebaviour

Laboratory Researcher examines organizational processes

experiments under tightly controlled conditions

Researcher uses mathematical modelling to

Computer
construct a complete and closed model
simulations
Highly artificial, of the phenomenon of interest
controlled

Figure 1. Types of organizational research methods

pose a similar classification problem. Had the questionnaire been sent to these
managers' firms to be completed, such a study could be classified straightfor-
wardly as a field study. Because the questionnaire was administered on a uni-
versity campus, however, it is not clear whether this study should be classified as
field research. Thus, it should be noted that the boundaries between types of
organizational research methods, as well as those between different types of field
techniques, are sometimes fuzzy. Although we encountered a number of classifi-
cationaJ difficulties during the review process, it is our belief that all of the studies
cited below are primarily if not entirely field studies.

Type 1: Direct and Participant Observation

Direct or participant observation involves a very close relationship with the phe-
nomenon under study. Observational studies of top managers at work are good
examples of the first or 'direct' approach (e.g. Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Min-
tzberg, 1973). The hallmark of direct research is a detailed familiarity with the
situation gained from a lengthy period of personal observation (Mintzberg, 1979).
Direct observation can generate meanings and perspectives not attainable by
most other research methods (cf. Martinko and Gardner, 1985, 1990). The case
study, which was the foundation of the early strategic management literature,
relied heavily on direct observation as its research method. The main limitation
of direct observation as a research method is that the observer usually cannot
determine how much his or her presence is affecting the situation being studied.
Observation can also occur through actual participation in the organization or
phenomenon of interest. The research on strategic issue analysis by Thomas et
al. (1989) in which one of the investigators was a member of the focal organiza-
BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
460 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

Table I. Classification of field research methods in strategic management

Type 1: Direct and participant observation

Field researcher participates in or directly observes phenomenon of interest
Examples
Observation: Mintzberg (1973)
Participation: Bartunek (1984)
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991)

Type 2: Interviewing
Asking questions of those who have information about a phenomenon that the researcher
has not been able to observe directly
Examples
Open-ended: Miles and Snow (1978)
Structured: EgelhoflF (1988)
Group: McDaniel et al. (1987)
Longitudinal: Johnson (1988)
Telephone: Javidan (1984)

Type 3: Questionnaire survey

A set of questions distributed to respondents
Examples
Mailed: Dess and Davis (1984)
Administered on site: Miller et al. (1982)
Single respondent per site: Zajac and Shortell (1989)
Multiple respondents per site: Norbum (1986)
Longitudinal: Gomez-Mejia (1988)

Type 4: Field simulation/experiment

Context of phenomenon is partially controlled by presentation of written or computerized
scenarios or by use of natural or contrived quasi-experiments
Examples
Scenario administered in field setting: Fredrickson and Mitchell (1984)
Scenario administered through mailed
questionnaire: Thomas and McDaniel (1990)
Quasi-experiment: Venkatraman and Zaheer (1990)
Natural experiment: Meyer (1982)

Type 5: Multi-method study

A study that combines two or more field methods
Elxampks
Interviewing and company
archival analysis: Chandler (1962)
Observation and interviewing: Reid (1989)
Questionnaire and interviewing: Gupta and Covindarajan (1984)
Observation, questionnaires
and interviewing: Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988)
Observation, interview and
company archival analysis: Meyer (1982)

tion, is an example of participant observation. Other participant-observation

studies have examined strategic reorientation (Bartunek, 1984) and the process of
strategic planning (Gioia and Ghittipeddi, 1991). As a participant observer, the
researcher is as close as possible to the situation and therefore obtains an under-
© Basil BlackweU Ltd 1994
 FIELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 461

Standing of the phenomenon very similar to that of the organization's members

(Polanyi, 1962). However, as Bruyn (1970) noted, the participant has the problem
of separating his or her involvement from the situation and, thereby, achieving
the detachment needed to arrive at an objective accounting of the phenomenon
under study.
Ethnographic methods are particularly relevant when discussing direct and
participant observation. The ethnographic approach evolved from anthro-
pological and sociological research techniques (cf. Rist, 1980). In practice, ethno-
graphy allows a researcher to use the cultural setting of an organization to
account for the observed phenomenon. This is accomplished by engaging in a
long period of intimate study employing a wide range of observational techni-
ques. Some of these techniques include prolonged face-to-face contact, participa-
tion in organizational activities, the use of documentary data and other intensive
interaction with informants (van Maanen, 1979). The ultimate aim of this
research approach is to uncover and explicate the ways people come to under-
stand and take action in a situation. Dutton and Dukerich's (1991) study of the
New York Port Authority is an example of such an interpretive approach to the
study of strategic issues.

Type 2: Interviewing
Interviewing involves asking questions of those who have information about a
phenomenon that the researcher has not been able to observe directly. Interviews
may require respondents, among other things, to (a) speak about themselves, (b)
inform on the attitudes and actions of others, (c) recall events that have occurred
in the past, and (d) speculate about future situations (Cannell and Kahn, 1968).
Responses are most commonly elicited from single respondents through open-
ended or structured interviews. For example, the studies by Miles and Snow
(1978) were based on open-ended interviews, whereas structured interviewing
provided the data in studies by Lenz and Engledow (1986), Egelhoff (1988) and
Walter and Barney (1990). However, there have been variations on the typical
interview format in strategic management research. These include (a) the use of
combined open-ended and structured interviews (Duhaime and Grant, 1984); (b)
group interviews (McDaniel et al., 1987); (c) unscheduled interviews over multiple
time periods (Johnson, 1988); and (d) telephone interviews (Javidan, 1984). The
study by Grinyer et al. (1986) is notable for its large-scale interviewing process
conducted in 48 randomly-selected firms.
Interviewing typically involves less interaction with the situation than direct or
participant observation, so objectivity may be easier to attain. However, inter-
viewing as a method relies heavily on the opinions, perspectives, and recollections
of respondents. Several useful interviewing guidelines for reducing inaccuracies in
historical accounts of strategic decision-making have been offered (e.g. Huber
and Power, 1985). In many field studies, interview data need to be combined
with observational (and other) data to arrive at a valid characterization of the
research problem (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Type 3: Questionnaire Survey

The questionnaire survey usually is chosen rather than observation or interview-
ing because of its ability to generate a larger sample of organizations and respon-
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
462 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

dents. Questionnaires are 'written interviews', and they can be mailed to respon-
dents (e.g. Dess and Davis, 1984) or administered on site (e.g. Miller et al., 1982).
The questionnaire's prime advantage is its efficiency (speed, low cost, quantifica-
tion) in generating large amounts of data that can be subjected to statistical
analysis. In the strategic management literature, questionnaires have been used
with (a) single respondents in a firm (Balkin and Gomez-Mejia, 1990; Zajac and
Shortell, 1989); (b) multiple respondents in a firm (Norbum, 1986); (c) single
(Rosenberg, 1983) or multiple (Sousa de Vasconcellos e Sa and Hambrick, 1989)
expert panels; and (d) both the corporate and subsidiary offices of a firm
(Ghoshal and Nohria, 1989; Kriger, 1988). Questionnaires are also used to
collect data across several time periods (e.g. Gomez-Mejia, 1988).
The major limitation of questionnaires is their typically low response rate
(Gaedeke and Tootelian, 1976). Low response rates are problematic because they
reduce confidence about the extent to which survey results generalize to the
population from which the survey is drawn. To increase response rates, Dillman
(1978) recommends the 'total design method' consisting of (1) identifying and
coping with factors that can influence the number and quality of responses, and
(2) conducting the survey so that all plans are completely implemented. Dillman
reports that 48 questionnaire surveys using this method produced an average
response rate of 74 per cent, with none of the surveys obtaining less than a 50
per cent response.
Against the backdrop of the total design method, strategic management
surveys produce relatively low response rates. We compiled data on all strategy
studies using surveys from 1981 to 1991 in three major outlets for strategy
research: Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, a n d Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly {n - 209). The average response rate for this group o
studies was 63 per cent. However, when weighting for the size of the sample, the
response rate was 55 per cent, suggesting that smaller surveys generate pro-
portionally more replies. Also, 33 per cent of the studies (« = 69) had response
rates lower than 50 per cent, indicating that a sizable proportion of studies may
have considerable problems with generalizability.
Taken together, the above results indicate that strategy surveys may be doing
a less than desirable job of obtaining responses compared to the broader social
science surveys referenced by Dillman. To explore this issue further, we also
looked at the response rates of different types of respondents. As might be
expected, surveying top managers produces the lowest rate of response (an
average of 52 per cent). Research using other managers as respondents achieved
an average rate of return of 61 per cent. Strategy studies using employees or
students generally obtained much higher response rates (72 per cent and 79 per
cent, respectively), but the validity of the strategic-level information provided
could be questioned.
Our examination of survey research in strategic management provides insight
into the dilemma of the response rate-validity tradeoff. In general, the following
features are associated with high response rates: (a) contacting respondents in
advance (e.g. Galbraith and Merrill, 1991); (b) administering surveys on site espe-
cially during work hours (e.g. Pearce, 1983); (c) convincing top managers to dis-
tribute surveys (e.g. Hambrick, 1982); (d) contacting non-respondents and/or
sending them another mailing (e.g. Robinson and Pearce, 1983); and (e) doing
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
 FIELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 463

the survey in conjunction with interviews (e.g. Hambrick, 1981). On the other
hand, low response rates were generally obtained when surveys were mailed
directly to respondents without prior contact. This was especially true when
intended respondents were top managers.

Type 4: Field Simulation/Experiment

In contrast to the three previous categories, this type of field method involves the
researcher imposing a substantial degree of structure on the situation. Two
specific methods (field simulation and quasi-experiments) are discussed below.

Field simulation. Used predominantly for strategy formulation research, a field

simulation is an attempt to have managers make decisions within a context set by
the investigator. In the strategic management literature, field simulation usually
involves the use of written case scenarios to which managers respond by answer-
ing a questionnaire. Scenarios have been posed to managers that deal with (a)
potential problems facing their firms (Fredrickson, 1984; Fredrickson and Mitch-
ell, 1984; Thomas and McDaniel, 1990); (b) different strategic decision-making
processes (Cosier and Aplin, 1980); and (c) firm effectiveness (Ireland et al., 1987).
By using written scenarios, the investigator is able to exert some degree of
control over the stimuli presented to managers similar to laboratory conditions.
This offers a distinct advantage over methods such as questionnaire surveys
where variance in respondents' interpretations of items is more likely to be a
source of error (Fredrickson, 1986). In contrast to most laboratory experiments,
however, managers have been asked to participate in simulations, rather than
naive respondents such as students, so that decision outcomes reflect the intui-
tions, analyses, and experiences of individuals who actually make strategic deci-
sions. Thus, the use of scenarios offers the researcher both expert input and some
control over stimuli. On the other hand, because scenarios describe hypothetical
(though usually realistic) situations, the researcher cannot be certain that
managers will interpret and act on real circumstances in the same manner as
they respond to scenarios. For a more detailed explanation of the theory and
assumptions of field simulation, along with its benefits and shortcomings, see Fre-
drickson (1986).

Quasi-experiments. Although quasi-experiments are a popular means of social

science inquiry (Cook and Campbell, 1979), they have seldom been used by
strategy researchers. Yet since quasi-experimental designs, unlike other field
methods, often employ control groups, they can be powerful methods for the field
investigator. The increased use of such methods is desirable since they allow
researchers to strengthen their claims to valid results. A notable example is Ven-
katraman and Zaheer (1990), who employed an untreated control group design
with pre-test and post-test to examine the impact of a technological change on
firm performance. Similar approaches could be particularly useful in designing
field studies around major anticipated events. Such events might include the
deregulation of one or more industries, implementation of trade agreements,
major capital investments, or mergers.
Despite the benefits of quasi-experimental designs, there are some clear limita-
tions. First, robust quasi-experimental designs may not always be possible.
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
464 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

Control groups may not be available and/or the implementation of 'treatments'

may be difficult to discern. Also, the lack of random assignment in such designs
means that observed relationships may be the result of some factor other than
the treatment even if control groups are employed.

Type 5: Multi-method Study

This type of field study is a composite of two or more of the field methods dis-
cussed above. Although many strategic management studies have used multiple
methods across different phases of a research project (e.g. interviews to pretest a
questionnaire), the multi-method study referred to here is similar to what Jick
(1979) has called triangulation, a combination of methods used to study the same
phenomenon. The basic premise of the multimethod approach is that the parti-
cular limitations of a given method wiU be compensated by the counter-balancing
strengths of another (Rohner, 1977). The use of multiple methods helps the
researcher to be confident that observed variance between subjects is a product
of subject attributes rather than of method (Campbell and Fiske, 1959).
Studies that employ multiple field methods have an impressive, if not exten-
sive, record in the strategy literature. In his classic field study. Chandler (1962)
combined interviewing and an historical analysis of company archives to describe
relationships between strategy and structure. A similar approach was used by
Porac et al. (1989) to examine how strategists perceive their firms' competitors.
Other studies have combined observation and interviewing (e.g. Reid, 1989) or
questionnaires and interviewing (e.g. Carlori and Ardisson, 1988; Dess and Davis,
1984; Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984; Kriger, 1988; Rhyne, 1986; Trostel and
Nichols, 1982). A recent study by Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) combined
three different field methods - observation, interviewing, and questionnaires -
and their findings were combined to create a mid-range theory of politics in stra-
tegic decision-making. A particularly strong use of multiple field methods is
Meyer's (1982) examination of several hospitals' strategic responses to the 1975
San Francisco doctors' strike. The strike took place during the course of a data-
coUection effort already under way, and the investigator quickly reorganised to
take advantage of this 'natural' experiment. During the strike, Meyer examined
three very different hospitals in depth using qualitative methods, including inter-
views and direct observation, while gathering statistical data such as financial and
occupancy records on all 19 hospitals in the sample. In addition, following the
strike, a wider range of interviews was conducted.
Despite the advantages of using various field methods in combination, this
approach also has its limitations. For example, the use of more than one field
method introduces analytic diversity, but such diversity is low relative to the
entire range of research methods (see figure 1). Indeed, the use of multiple field
methods may only be sufficient to create within-method triangulation (Denzin,
1978; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987). Within-method triangulation means
that the researcher has examined a phenomenon or relationship from different
angles, but these views share common flaws which prevent strong convergent
validity from being established. In the case of multiple field methods, lack of
strong researcher control over the situation, as well as an emphasis on manage-
rial perspectives, may prohibit a thorough understanding of constructs and rela-
tionships from emerging. Thus, to gain between-method triangulation, strategy
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
 RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 465

researchers may need to augment field methods with other types such as labora-
tory experiments and/or computer simulations (Denzin, 1978).
Perhaps some of the best uses of multiple methods for within- and between-
method triangulation are the studies by Pettigrew (1973) and Pettigrew et al.
(1992). In these studies, Pettigrew and his colleagues made use of multiple field
methods to confront the problems of bias and validity. These methods included
participant and direct observation over time, interviews (using multiple inter-
viewers across levels of hierarchy), questionnaires, and unobtrusive measures (e.g.
personnel files). They also content-analysed internal documents (including firm
reports, memos, minutes of meetings and letters) and compared their personal
diaries of observations. Finally, in the organizational decision-making study
(1973), the research team also embarked on an intensive historical analysis
relying heavily on external data (e.g. newspaper advertisements) as a validity
check of their field findings.
Unfortunately, strategy research has normally not used between-method trian-
gulation in the form found in the Pettigrew studies (or in other forms). Venkatra-
man and Ramanujam's (1987) study of the measurement of business
performance, which used both perceptual measures obtained from managers
within organizations and objective measures compiled outside the organization, is
one of the few notable examples. Although both data-gathering techniques could
arguably be considered field methods, their variance on key dimensions (sub-
jective vs. objective, internal source vs. external source) allowed the investigators
to make a strong case for convergent validity.
In summary, this brief review of the major field research methods has high-
lighted their diversity, versatility, and limitations. It is now appropriate to assess
the contributions that field methods have made to strategic management theory
development.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF HELD METHODS TO THEORY DEVELOPMENT

One means of determining the contributions that field research methods have
made to theory development in strategic management is shown in figure 2. This
matrix is defined by (a) the stage of theory development {building or testing and (b)
the purpose of theory {description, explanation or prediction). Each cell of the matrix
includes a description of that specific stage of the theory-development process
and illustrative examples drawn from the literature.

Theory Building
Before a theory can be tested, it must be constructed. The process of theory gen-
eration typically includes steps such as the identification of relevant constructs,
development of hypotheses about relationships, and the proffering of explanations
for these relationships (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1984). Each of these steps addres-
ses a different research goal.

Description. Description contributes to understanding primarily by identifying the

concepts or constructs of a theory (Dubin, 1978). While the ultimate goal of
theory may be to answer the questions of how, why and when, the main purpose of
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
466 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

Description Explanation Prediction

1 2 3
Key question is 'what'. Key questions are 'how' Key questions are 'who'.
Identify key constructs and 'why'. Establish 'where' and 'when'.
and variables. Studies relationships among Examine boundary
are usually based on constructs and provide conditions of a theory.
Theory observation (e.g. theoretical rationale for Result may be a middle-
building Mintzberg, 1973) and/ observed relationships. range theory (e.g.
or interviewing (e.g. Studies usually use Eisenhardt and Bourgeois,
Quinn, 1980). observation and/or 1988). Studies use
interviews (e.g. observation, questionnaire
Chandler, 1962; MUes surveys, and interviewing.
and Snow, 1978). Multiple methods are also
employed.

4 5 6
Focus is on developing Focus is on Focus is on testing
and validating measures documenting competing theories of the
of key constructs. relationships among same phenomenon
Studies usually use variables through through crucial
questionnaire, surveys hypothesis testing. experiments (e.g.
and/or interviews (e.g. Large samples are Venkatraman, 1990;
Shortell and Zajac, frequently used with Cosier and Aplin, 1980).
Theory 1990; Herbert and questionnaire surveys Because of the dearth of
testing Deresky, 1987). Several (e.g. Hitt and Ireland, this type of study, no
conceptual articles have 1985a,b; Snow and pattern in field method
also been important. Hrebiniak 1980) or field usage can be discerned.
simulations (e.g.
Thomas and McDaniel,
1990). Because causal
links are examined or
implied, researchers
must be wary of
common-method bias.

Figure 2. Field research methods and theory development in strategic management

description is to answer the question of what (Bacharach, 1989; Hempel, 1965).

Thus, description plays an important role in the generation of strategic manage-
ment theory by identifying the basic building blocks of propositions and hypoth-
eses: constructs and variables.
Descriptive field studies have been conducted at every prominent level of
analysis. For example, at the individual level, Mintzberg (1973) described the
daily activities of, and the various roles played by, top-level executives. At the
group or management-team level, Mintzberg et al. (1976) identified and descri-
bed the different phases of the strategic decision-making process, while Quinn
(1980) provided constructs that represent the ways in which general managers use
task forces or study groups to change strategies. At the firm level, Daniels et al.
(1984) identified the organization structures that are used by large US multi-
national companies to implement different corporate strategies. Lastly, entire
global industries have been described according to a conceptual framework called
the 'diamond' (Porter, 1990).
I BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
 RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 467

The success of descriptive theory building can be seen when other investigators
extend initial theorizing by adding more variables to a framework, by refining
variable definitions, and by exploring relationships among variables in larger-
scale studies. The work of Mintzberg et al. (1976), for example, has spawned a
substantial amount of conceptual and empirical research on strategic issue for-
mulation (e.g. Cowan, 1986; Dutton et al., 1983; Lyles, 1981; Thomas and
McDaniel, 1990).

Explanation. This aspect of theory building is an attempt to establish how and why
key variables are related (Whetten, 1989). The goals of the investigator in this
type of research are to: (a) explore the nature and degree of association among
major variables, (b) decide if additional variables are needed to provide a more
accurate description of the phenomenon, and (c) offer theoretical explanations of
observed relationships. With explanation as a research objective, the investigator
must address the issue of causality among variables. Although a particular study
may not be able to test for causality adequately, it is important to present a
theoretical rationale for any observed relationships.
An example of this type of strategic management research is Chandler's (1962)
explanation of the relationship between strategy and structure as key variables in
the determination of firm performance. Chandler first identified strategy and
structure as variables affecting firm performance. Next, through a detailed chron-
ological analysis, he showed how strategy and structure are related, including the
assertion that strategic change caused structural change. Finally, he suggested
that additional variables, such as leadership, also affected the basic strategy-
structure relationship.
Another example of explanatory research is Miles and Snow's (1978) investiga-
tion of the relationships among competitive strategy, organization structure, and
management processes. This study refined the fundamental variables described
by Chandler (1962) and indicated specific configurations of relationships among
the variables (so-called organization types). Most importantly, the study offered
theoretical reasons why such organization types exist. This rationale was buUt
largely on the constructs of enactment (Weick, 1969) and perceived environ-
mental uncertainty (Duncan, 1972; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).

Prediction. The basic purpose of prediction in theory building is to establish the

conditions under which a theory holds. Therefore, the questions addressed by
predictive studies involve issues of who, where and when (Whetten, 1989). A pre-
dictive study builds on the efforts of prior research by incorporating previously
identified variables and hypotheses into a theoretical framework whose bound-
aries can be determined.
Few theory-building studies in strategic management have been designed with
prediction as a central research goal. One recent example is the study by Eisen-
hardt and Bourgeois (1988), which focused on the politics of strategic decision-
making. Previous research had indicated that not all strategic decision-making
processes were political. Therefore, this field study was designed to isolate the
conditions under which politics would be present and to specify a model of poli-
tical decision-making in a particular setting: 'high-velocity' environments. The
results of this study provided a mid-range theory of political behaviour among
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
468 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

top management teams in the microcomputer industry (and, by implication, in

other fast-changing industries). Pettigrew's (1973) study, discussed above, is also
an example of research conducted with prediction as an objective.

Theory Testing
After a theory has been assembled, it can be tested. Similar to theory building,
theory testing moves through several distinct phases characterized by increasing
specification and rigour. However, because of statistical requirements, theory
testing usually requires studies of larger size than theory building. Ultimately,
theories that purport to explain the same phenomenon can be tested against
each other.

Description. Whereas description during the theory-building phase is concerned

mainly with construct identification, description in theory testing focuses on con-
struct measurement. Generally speaking, the field of strategic management has
not devoted enough attention to measurement issues (Venkatraman and Grant,
1986). Indeed, Schwenk and Dalton (1991) found that over 70 per cent of strat-
egy articles published in a two-year period (1986-87) demonstrated no considera-
tion of construct validation.
The research on construct measurement that has been done tends to be of two
main types. First, some researchers have written conceptual articles that attempt
to improve the definition and/or measurement of key constructs. Articles in this
vein include Hambrick's (1980) discussion of the definition of business strategy.
Snow and Hambrick's (1980) evaluation of alternative ways of measuring
strategy, and Venkatraman and Ramanujam's (1986) discussion of performance
definition and measures. Second, some empirical research on instrument devel-
opment has been undertaken. For example, Shortell and Zajac (1990) developed
and tested a questionnaire to measure the Miles-Snow strategy types. Herbert
and Deresky (1987) conducted a multi-method field study to develop measures of
strategy at different life-cycle stages.

Explanation. This aspect of theory testing concerns the documentation of relation-

ships among variables (as contrasted to the specification of relationships in the
theory-building phase). Explanatory studies are normally well grounded in theory
that posits an association between specific variables. However, there may be
inadequate or conflicting arguments about the direction of the relationship or the
generalizability of the association across different settings. Thus, the hallmark of
the explanatory study is a large sample size, coupled with hypothesis testing.
Hrebiniak and Snow (1982), in a questionnaire survey of 88 firms across four
industries, attempted to document the relationship between top-management
agreement about a firm's strengths/weaknesses and its economic performance.
They also controlled for certain variables that previous literature had suggested
might affect this relationship. Hitt and Ireland (1985a,b), in a questionnaire
survey of 185 firms, tested hypotheses concerning a variety of relationships
among industry, firm, and performance variables. Explanatory studies such as
these are appearing increasingly in the strategic management literature as
theories become more sophisticated.
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
 HELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 469

Prediction. It has been claimed that prediction is the ultimate research goal
(Braithwaite, 1955; Kaplan, 1964). Prediction without explanation, however,
leaves the researcher (and the strategist) with little understanding of the phenom-
enon in question. In situations where predictions are incorrect, the researcher has
little or no guidance in modifying the theory. Therefore, the predictive study that
is built on explanation represents the ultimate form of theory development. In its
ideal state, a predictive study presupposes validly defined and measured variables
as well as theoretically grounded explanations of key relationships.
Where competing theories exist, 'crucial experiments' (Platt, 1964), which pit
hypotheses against each other, can be employed to reject one or more of the
theoretical perspectives. Given the volume of theory development that has tran-
spired in strategic management, crucial experiments may now be necessary to
further advance knowledge. Unfortunately, these kinds of studies are rarely
found in the strategy literature. Indeed, it would be difficult to single out any
study that strictly meets all of the criteria of a predictive study. However, some
studies are clearly of this type and may approximate the ideal profile. One such
study is Venkatraman's (1990) examination of the effects on performance of
strategic coalignment. Three forms of coalignment suggested by previous
research were tested in a questionnaire survey of 201 strategic business units.
Another predictive study, in which three different strategic planning perspectives
were tested by presenting managers with case scenarios, was conducted by
Cosier and Aplin (1980).

Summary
It is clear that field research methods have played a major role in the develop-
ment of the strategic management literature. Their overall contribution can be
summarized in several observations. First, field methods have been used more
to generate theory than to test theory. Second, observation and interviewing
have been the main methods used to build theory (Cells 1 - 3 of figure 2), while
questionnaire surveys and field simulations/experiments have been used mostly
to test theory (Cells 4-6). Third, field methods, especially the questionnaire
survey, have been used to create instruments for measuring key variables such
as strategy and environment (Cell 4 of figure 2). Fourth, field methods have
been the most frequent means of conducting multi-level studies of strategic
decision-making within various team, firm, and environmental contexts. Last,
due to the organizational accessibility which they require, field research methods
have been the primary means of linking strategic management theory to
practice.

IMPUCATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Field methods have played a prominent role in strategic management research,

but will that role be as strong in the future? We believe it wdU, assuming that
four general conditions are met: (1) a balanced research agenda is pursued; (2)
more sophisticated, multifaceted research approaches are implemented; (3) more
innovative data-gathering techniques are developed and applied; and (4) future-
oriented applied research is emphasized.
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
470 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

Description Explanation Prediction

1 2 3

Theory
Building

5 6

Theory
Testing

Figure 3. A representation of the relative frequency of field studies in strategic management

Balanced Research Agenda

Some significant imbalances are notable in the strategy literature. First, as figure
3 illustrates, there is a wide disparity among the types of studies in strategic man-
agement that use field methods. Ideally, at this stage of the field's development,
the six types would be weighted somewhat equally. However, based on a review
of 257 articles in four prominent journals. Summer et al. (1990) reported that not
only do the imbalances exist when all methods of research are considered, but
they continue to grow.
We recommend that a more balanced research agenda be pursued in strategic
management. The pendulum has swung from early efforts to identify constructs
and build theory to recent efforts that focus on testing hypotheses through large-
sample studies (Schwenk and Dalton, 1991). For a healthy rate of knowledge
accumulation to occur in the future, a balance among the processes of theory
building and testing, and the various research methods that are used, is needed
(cf Montgomery et al., 1989). Indeed, the current focus on theory testing,
especially of the explanatory type (Cell 5 of figure 3), may result in an over-
emphasis on certain field methods, such as survey research or secondary data
bases. Without the insight gained from more realistic methods, such as interviews
and observation, this emphasis may result in a myopic or stagnated knowledge
base.
Second, even within the realm of theory testing, the minimal attention being
paid to the development of valid and reliable measures of key constructs (see
figure 3, Cell 4) is likely to create subsequent problems in hypothesis testing (Cell
5) and prediction (Cell 6). For significant advancement in strategy to occur, vari-
ables and variable sets need to be clearly formulated so that studies focused on
covariation may proceed effectively. Field methods are particularly useful for
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
 nELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 471

understanding the vocabulary of an industry or business (managers' cognitive

maps, emerging trends, etc.) and therefore can enhance the validity of measure-
ment studies.
Third, the conduct of strategy research in recent years has been skewed
toward quantitative as opposed to qualitative approaches. Several observers have
expressed concern that strategy researchers increasingly are using sterile data and
that a clear tendency toward analysis of secondary data has developed (e.g.
Bettis, 1991; Hambrick, 1990). Much of this data collection lacks the richness
and texture needed to build new theory or to interpret test results thoroughly.
Moreover, as Bowman (1990) noted, investigators often work with data bases
accumulated by others for very different purposes. Such trends may be detri-
mental to the entire research process in strategic management. As Mintzberg
(1979) argued, effective theory building and subsequent testing require rich
description. Using 'soft' data derived from field methods, investigators are better
able to explain relationships among variables and set the foundation for predic-
tion and subsequent testing.
Fourth, an over-strong emphasis on logical positivism in the field of strategy
may account for the imbalance in the type of study (i.e. emphasis on theory
testing) and also in the type of methods used (e.g questionnaire, secondary data
base). In this vein, many strategy researchers employ a research 'template' that
consists of construct identification, variable measurement, and statistical analysis
(Bowman, 1990). As a result of this standard research process, certain methods
are either ignored or de-emphasized. Ultimately, such research strategies may be
driving not only the research questions posed in the field but also, to some
extent, the results obtained (Daft and Buenger, 1990).
The challenge for strategic management is the development of the field not
only in terms of balancing the research purpose (i.e. building and testing theory),
but in terms of confronting the fundamental trade-offs associated v^dth the choice
of research design as the balance is attempted (cf. Ginsberg, 1988; Miller and
Friesen, 1982). For example, one trade-off concerns the scope of the studies con-
ducted. Simple model testing, which is often the hallmark of survey research and
analysis of secondary data sources, continues to provide explanations of strategy
phenomena (e.g. Cell 5 studies). However, the risk of specification error and the
development of oversimplified theoretical perspectives increases. On the other
hand, while utilizing an array of field methods (e.g. interviews, observations, field
experiments) increases the chance of building more accurate models, it also
increases the difficulty of data gathering and may complicate longitudinal
analysis.
Another trade-off involves the precision of measurement and analysis in the
field. Qualitative field methods (e.g. direct or participant observation) can be used
to uncover complex and dynamic interactions among organizational and strategic
factors. On the other hand, these methods are more susceptible to researcher
bias and reliability problems. Quantitative methods provide greater objectivity
and reliability but often ignore many important, more complex organizational
realities.
More and more, strategic management researchers have chosen limited-scope,
short-term, quantitadve-based research strategies that fit the characteristics of
studies in Cell 5 of figure 2. This dominant design profile needs to be redirected
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
472 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

if we are to achieve a healthy balance in research purpose and method. For

example, examining complex theoretic models in a limited number of firms over
time using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods would facilitate more
activity in Cells 2 and 3. This or other 'unconventional' designs suggest new
research profiles that might facilitate insight or spur the cross-disciplinary colla-
boration that many feel is needed to advance the field (Bowman, 1990).

Multifaceted Approaches
More sophisticated studies can be conducted by taking a multifaceted approach
to strategy research. Exemplary studies in this regard have exhibited some or all
of the following features: multiple levels, time periods, and methods. For
example, the studies by Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988), and Thomas and
McDaniel (1990), considered several levels of analysis simultaneously. These two
studies investigated various combinations of characteristics associated with
individual executives (e.g. the CEO), management teams (e.g. politics), organ-
izations (e.g. strategy), and environments (e.g. high-velocity). Multilevel studies
are needed to identify the boundary conditions of strategy theory (Cell 3 of figure
2).
The time frame of reference also has important implications for the choice and
application of research methods. For example, the studies by Fombrun (1990)
and Coser et al. (1984) combined observation, interviewing, and questionnaires
over an extended period, to examine the dynamics of organizational configura-
tions. Similarly, in their study of strategic decision-making. Gray et al. (1988)
used interviews with several hundred executives across three overlapping periods,
coupled with observations and company archival analysis, to analyse 150 strate-
gic decisions. These studies defy the conventional wisdom that field research
cannot obtain large samples because it is too dme-consuming. As a general rule,
strategy researchers should examine their phenomenon of interest for much
longer periods. Summer et al. (1990) noted that complex alignments of organiza-
tional and environmental factors often take years to achieve or change. There-
fore, more sequenced or programmatic empirical studies are needed (McGrath,
1964). Many of the newest strategies and organizational forms are developing in
industries that are undergoing rapid and substantial change. Formerly distinct
areas are converging - computers and telecommunications, microelectronics and
microbiology, medicine and microelectronics - and such convergence blurs tradi-
tional industry boundaries and relationships. Field studies can help to sort out the
reasons why competitors suddenly become customers or collaborators, thereby
laying the needed theory-building groundwork for later, more extensive theory-
testing research.
Finally, sophisticated multi-method approaches to the study of strategy can be
accomplished in field research. Mark and Shotland (1987) review three such
approaches, referring to them as the (1) triangulation model, (2) bracketing
model, and (3) complementary-purposes model. The triangulation model requires
the use of multiple methods to converge on a single 'answer'. For example, both
Pettigrew (1973) and Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) combined several field
methods in an attempt to converge on a mid-range theory of politics. The brack-
eting model assumes that multiple methods will not converge on a single answer
but rather provide a range of estimates that are likely to include the right answer.
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
 nELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 473

Chakravarthy's (1986) attempt to identify the dimensions of performance that

distinguished excellent from non-excellent firms is an example. The com-
plementary-purposes model posits that each method is to carry out a different
but complementary function. For example, Thomas and Gioia (1994) used a case
study, built on interviews and archival analyses, to develop a model of strategic
issue interpretation. They then tested the case findings by surveying 622 organi-
zations with a mailed questionnaire.

Innovative Data-Gathering Approaches

In the last decade, substantial progress has been made in the development of
powerful analytical techniques, but very little innovation has occurred in the
techniques used for gathering data. Some observers argue that strategy research-
ers have become too dependent on verbal and written reports from managers
(Summer et al., 1990). These data need to be supplemented with other useful
sources. For instance, in certain types of situations, validity may be strengthened
by using field methods to collect visual data (Meyer, 1990). Visual data might be
obtained from pictures, diagrams, computer graphics, and other representations.
Collecting visual data is especially useful in situations where the researcher seeks
measurement precision but does not want to force respondents to use a particular
cognitive framework. Data of this type, probably collected through interviews and
questionnaires, might be creatively applied in studies representing several cells in
Figure 2. For instance, visual data might be used to identify key constructs (Cell
1) from the practitioner's point of view, uncover and explain relationships
between constructs (Cell 2), or compare researchers' constructs with practitioners'
constructs (Cell 4).

Applied Futuristic Orientation

Finally, field methods provide a means to anticipate the new directions that stra-
tegic management theory and practice may take. Particularly valuable uses would
be those that focus on emerging theoretical developments within the discipline as
well as those that reduce the time gap between developments in practice and
theory.
Recently, two studies that surveyed strategic management scholars predicted
that research will be directed increasingly toward topics of applied interest such
as global competition, strategy implementation, and new forms of organization
(Lyles, 1990; Zahra and Pearce, 1992). If these predictions are correct, then field
research methods, which closely monitor practitioners' perceptions and beha-
viours, will continue to contribute strongly to theory development in strategic
management by providing critical insights into these applied areas.
Also, field research methods are uniquely suited td anticipating the future.
UnUke archival methods, which can only explore 'what has been', or experi-
mental methods, which are most useful for investigating 'what is', field methods
can be used to anticipate strategic issues that 'will', 'may' or 'should' impact the
firm. For example, the well-done case study that describes the pioneering
strategy, or the Delphi study that explores planned responses to a coming event,
can help researchers prepare to conduct more timely as well as more rigorous
studies. In general, a focus on interesting outliers can reduce the time lag
between the appearance of a useful practice and its later examination.
© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994
474 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

CONCLUSION

Strategic management was not regarded as an academic discipline in the 1950s

and early 1960s. Its literature was essentially a vast collection of case studies.
Although most of these cases were constructed using various field methods, their
purpose was to enhance classroom teaching, not to develop theory. Viewed from
a theoretical perspective, cases were simply examples of^ managerial and firm
behaviour, often idiosyncratic behaviour. Therefore, any prescriptions offered
might not generalize to other situations.
In the 1970s, and especially in the 1980s, strategic management research
became much more rigorous and quantitative. It might be argued that this
research tried to explain patterns and variations across the rich mix of cases
already in place. The overall success of these efforts enabled strategic manage-
ment to attain the status of a respected academic discipline.
Now, in the 1990s, calls are being heard for research that explores the con-
siderable unexplained variance that remains from the quantitative studies (e.g.
Bettis, 1991). Invariably, these calls recommend that greater use be made of field
methods, particularly multiple methods. In addition, we urge researchers to
expand their research designs beyond the confines of field methods to include
other types of methods. While such between-method triangulation may be
labour-intensive, the reward is likely to be increased validity. As an applied field,
strategic management owes its constituents, particularly practitioners, the most
robust results that it can provide.
Ultimately, data collection^ methods and the research purposes discussed here
do not prescribe how analysis is undertaken, and therefore the value and robust-
ness of the research. Open-ended or semi-structured interviews, for example, can
be analysed using a host of different methods ranging from traditional textual
content analysis to sophisticated computer-based statistical packages. In this sense,
it is important to recognize that it is not necessarily the selection of field method
that accounts for the value of the research, but the wider research design, as dis-
cussed, and the analysis technique(s) employed.

NOTE

*The original version of this article was presented at the conference on Theory Building
in Strategic Management, University of Illinois, 15-16 May 1990. We thank the con-
ference participants for their ideas and suggestions. Subsequently, the article benefited
from the comments of Rocki-Lee DeWitt, Dennis Gioia, Reuben McDaniel, Alan Meyer,
Raymond Miles, Howard Thomas, and Edward Zajac. We are especially grateful to
Shawn Clark and David Ketchen, who provided both research and editorial assistance,
and the two journal reviewers for their insights.

REFERENCES

BACHARACH, S. G. (1989). 'Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation'. Academy

of Management Joumat, 14, 4, 496-515.

© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994

 HELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 475

BALKIN, D . B . and GOMEZ-MEJIA, L . R . (1990). 'Matching compensation and organiza-

tional strategies'. Strate^ Management Joumal, 11, 2, 153-69.
BARTUNEK, J. M. (1984). 'Changing interpretive schemes in organizational restructuring:
The example of a religious order'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 3, 355-72.
BETTIS, R . A. (1991). 'Strategic management and the straightjacket: An editorial essay'.
Organization Science, 1, 3, 315-19.
BIGGADIKE, R . (1981). 'The contributions of marketing to strategic management'. Academy
of Management Review, 6, 4, 621-32.
BOURGEOIS, L. J., Ill and EISENHARDT, K . M . (1988). 'Strategic decision processes in high-
velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry'. Management Science,
34, 7, 816-35.
BOWMAN, E . H . (1990). 'Strategy changes: Possible worlds and actual minds'. In Fre-
drickson, J. W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Management. New York: Harper Business.
BRATTHWAITE, R . (1955). Scientific Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BRUYN, S. (1970). 'The new empiricists: The participant observer and phenomenologists'.
In Filstead, S. (Ed.), Qualitative Methodology. Chicago: Markham.
CAMPBELL, D . T . and FISKE, D . W . (1959). 'Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix'. Psychob^al Bulletin, 56, 1, 81 — 105.
CANNELL, C . F . and KAHN, R . L . (1968). 'Interviewing'. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E.
(Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Second ed., Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
526-95.
CARLORI, R . and ARDISSON, J. M. (1988). 'Differentiation strategies in "stalemate indus-
tries" '. Strategic Management Joumal, 9, 3, 255-70.
CHAKRAVARTHY, B . S. (1986). 'Measuring strategic performance'. Strategic Management
Joumal, 7, 3, 437-58.
CHAKRAVARTHY, B . S. (1987). 'On tailoring a strategic planning system to its context:
Some empirical evidence'. Strategic Management Joumal, 8, 6, 517-34.
CHANDLER, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and Structure. New York: Doubleday.
COOK, T . D . and CAMPBELL, D . T . (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
CosER, L., KADUSHIN, C . and POWELL, W . (1984). Books: The Culture and Commerce of Pub-
lishing. New York: Basic Books.
COSIER, R . A. and APUN, J. C. (1980). 'A critical view of dialectical inquiry as a tool in
strategic planning'. Strate^ Management Joumal, 1, 3, 343-56.
COWAN, D . A. (1986). 'Developing a process model of problem recognition'. Academy of
Management Review, 11, 4, 763—76.
CRAY, D . , MALLORY, G . R . , BUTLER R . J., HIGKSON, D . J. and WILSON, D . C . (1988).
'Sporadic, fluid, and constricted processes: Three types of strategic decision-making in
OTga.mza.nons'. Joumal of Management Studies, 25, 1, 13-40.
DAFT, R . L . and BUENGER, V. (1990). 'Hitching a ride on a fast train to nowhere: The
past and future of strategic management research'. In Fredrickson, J. W. (Ed.), Perspec-
tives on Strategic Management. New York: Harper Business.
DANIELS, J. D., Prrrs, R. A. and TRETTER, M . J. (1984). 'Strategy and structure in U.S.
multinationals: An exploratory study'. Academy of Management Joumal, 27, 2, 292-307.
DENZIN, N . K . (1978). The Research Act. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DESS, G . S. and DAVIS, P. S. (1984). 'Porter's (1980) generic strategies as determinants of
strategic groups membership and organizational perioTtm.nce'. Academy of Management
Joumal, 27, 3, 467-88.
DiLLMAN, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: Wiley.
DUBIN, R . (1978). Theory Building (Second ed.) New York: Free Press.
DUHAIME, I. M. and GRANT, J. H. (1984). 'Factors influencing divestment decision
making'. Strategic Management Joumal, 5, 4, 301-18.

© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994

476 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

DUNCAN, R . B . (1972). 'Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived

environmental uncertainty'. Administrative Science Quarter^, 17, 3, 313-27.
DuTTON, J. E. and DUKERICH, J. M. (1991). 'Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and
identity in organizational adaptation'. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 3, 517-54.
DuTTON, J. E., FAHEY, L . and NARAYANAN, U . K . (1983). 'Toward understanding strategic
issues diagnosis'. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 3, 307-23.
EGELHOFF, W . G . (1988). 'Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: A revision
of the Stopford and Wells model'. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1, 1-14.
EISENHARDT, K . M . (1989). 'Building theories from case study research'. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 14, 4, 532-50.
EISENHARDT, K . M . and BOURGEOIS, L. J., Ill (1988). 'Politics of strategic decision making
in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory'. Academy of Management
Journal, 3 1 , 4, 737-70.
FOMBRUN, C . J. (1990). 'Convergent dynamics in the production of organizational config-
urations'. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 5, 439—58.
FREDRICKSON, J. W. (1984). 'The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes:
Extension, observations, future directions'. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 3, 4 4 5 -
66.
FREDRICKSON, J. W. (1986). 'An exploratory approach to measuring perceptions of strate-
gic decision process constructs'. Strategic Management Joumat, 7, 5, 473-83.
FREDRICKSON, J. W. and MITCHELL, T . R . (1984). 'Strategic decision processes: Compre-
hensiveness and performance in an industry with an unstable environment'. Academy of
Management Joumat, 27, 2, 399-423.
GAEDEKE, R . M . and TOOTELIAN, D . H . (1976). 'The Fortune 500 list: An endangered
species for academic research'. Joumat of Business Research, 4, 2, 283-88.
GALBRAH-H, C . S. and MERRILL, G . B . (1991). 'The effect of compensation program and
structure on SBU competitive strategy: A study of technology-intensive firms'. Strategy
Management Joumat, 12, 5, 353-70.
GHOSHAL, S. and NOHRIA, N . (1989). 'Internal differentiation vsdthin multinational compa-
nies'. Strate^ Management Joumat, 10, 4, 323—38.
GINSBERG, A. (1988). 'Measuring and modelling changes in strategy: Theoretical founda-
tions and empirical directions'. Strategic Management Joumat, 9, 6, 559-575.
GIOIA, D . A. and CHITTIPEDDI, K . (1991). 'Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic
change initiation'. Strategic Management Joumat, 12, 6, 433-48.
GOMEZ-MEJIA, L . R . (1988). 'The role of human resources strategy in export perfor-
mance: A longitudinal study'. Strategic Management Joumal, 9, 5, 493-506.
GRINYER, P. H., AL-BAZZAZ, S. and YASAI-ARDEKAM, M . (1986). 'Towards a contingency
theory of corporate planning: Findings in 48 U. K. companies'. Strategic Management
Joumal, 7, 1, 3-28.
GUPTA, A. K. and GOVINDARAJAN, V. (1984). 'Business unit strategy, managerial char-
acteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation'. Academy of Man-
agement Joumal, 27, 1, 2 5 - 4 1 .
HAMBRICK, D . C . (1980). 'Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in
research'. Academy of Management Review, 5, 4, 567—75.
HAMBRICK, D . C . (1981). 'Strategic awareness wdthin top management teams'. Strate^
Management Joumat, 2, 3, 263-79.
HAMBRIGK, D . C . (1982). 'Environmental scanning and organizational strategy'. Strategy
Management Joumal, 3, 2, 159—74.
HAMBRICK, D . C . (1990). 'The adolescence of strategic management, 1980-1985: Critical
perceptions and reality'. In Fredrickson, J. W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Strategy Management.
New York: Harper Business.
HEMPEL, C . (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.

© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994

 HELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 477

HERBERT, T . D . and DERESKY, H . (1987). 'Generic strategies: An empirical investigation

of typology validity and strategy content'. Strategy Management Joumal, 8, 2, 135-48.
HiTT, M. A. and iRELAPm, R. D. (1985a). 'Strategy, contextual factors, and performance'.
Human Relations, 38, 8, 793-812.
HiTT, M. A. and IRELAND, R . D . (1985b). 'Corporate distinctive competence, strategy,
industry, and performance'. Strate^ Management Joumal, 6, 3, 273-93.
HREBINIAK, L . G . and SNOW, C . C . (1982). 'Top-management agreement and organiza-
tional performance'. Human Relations, 35, 12, 1139—58.
HUBER, G . P. and POWER, D . J. (1985). 'Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers:
Guidelines for increasing their accuracy'. Strate^ Management Joumal, 6, 2, 171-80.
IRELAND, R . D . , H I T T , M . A., BETTIS, R . A. and DE PORRAS, D . A. (1987). 'Strategy for-
mulation processes: Diflerences in perceptions of strength and weakness indicators and
environmental uncertainty by managerial level'. Strategic Management Joumal, 8, 5, 4 6 9 -
86.
JAVIDAN, M . (1984). 'The impact of environmental uncertainty on long-range planning
practices of the US savings and loan industry'. Strategic Management Joumal, 5, 4, 3 8 1 -
92.
JEMISON, D . B . (1981). 'The contributions of administrative behavior to strategic manage-
ment'. Academy of Management Review, 6, 4, 633-42.
JiCK, T. D. (1979). 'Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action'.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 4, 602-11.
JOHNSON, G . (1988). 'Rethinking incrementalism'. Strategic Management Joumal, 9, 1, 75-92.
KAPLAN, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.
KRIGER, M . P . (1988). 'The increasing role of subsidiary boards in MNCs: An empirical
study'. Strategic Management Joumal, 9, 4, 347-61.
KURKE, L . B . and ALDRICH, H . E . (1983). 'Mintzberg was right!: A replication and exten-
sion of TTie Nature of Managerial Work'. Management Science, 29, 8, 975-84.
LAWRENCE, P. R. and LORSGH, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Boston: Harvard
Graduate School of Business Administration.
LEARNED, E . P., CHRISTENSEN, C . R . , ANDREWS, K . R . and GUTH, E . (1965). Business Policy.
Homewood, 111.: Irv\an.
LENZ, R . T . and ENGLEDOW, J. L. (1986). 'Environmental analysis units and strategic
decision making: Field study of selected leading edge corporations'. Strategic Management
Joumal, 7, 1, 69-90.
LUBATKIN, M . and SHRIEVES, R . E . (1986). 'Towards reconciliation of market performance
measures to strategic management research'. Academy of Management Review, 1 1 , 3 , 4 9 7 -
512.
LYLES, M . A. (1981). 'Formulating strategic problems: Empirical analysis and model
development'. Strategic Management Joumal, 2, 1, 61-75.
LYLES, M . A. (1990). 'A research agenda for strategic management in the 1990s'. Joumal
of Management Studies, 27, 4, 363-75.
MARK, M . M . and SHOTLAND, R . I. (1987). 'Alternative models for the use of multiple
methods'. In Mark, M. M. and Shotland, R. I. (Eds.), Multiple Methods in Program Eva-
luation, No. 35. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MARTINKO, M . J. and GARDNER, W . L . (1985). 'Beyond structured observation: Methodo-
logical issues and new directions'. Academy of Management Review, 10, 4, 676-95.
MARTINKO, M . J . and GARDNER, W . L . (1990). 'Structured observation of managerial
work: A replication and synthesis'. Joumal of Management Studies, 27, 3, 329-57.
MGDANIEL, R . R . , THOMAS, J . B., ASHMOS, D . P. and SMITH, J . P. (1987). 'The use of
decision analysis for organizational design: Reorganizing a community hospital'. Joumal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 3, 337-50.
M G G R A T H , J . E . (1964). 'Toward a "theory of method" for research on organizations'. In

© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994

478 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

Cooper, W. W., Leavitt, H. J. and Shelly, M. W. (Eds.), New Perspectives in Organization

Research. New York: Wiley, 533-56.
MEYER, A. D. (1982). 'Adapting to environmental jolts'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27,
4, 515-36.
MEYER, A. D. (1990). 'Visual data in organizational research'. Organization Science, 1, 4, 1 -
19.
MILES, R . E . and SNOW, C . C . (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
MILLER, D . and FRIESEN, P. H. (1982). 'Structural change and performance: Quantum vs.
piecemeal-incremental approaches'. Academy of Management Joumal, 2 5 , 4, 867-92.
MILLER, D . , KETS DE VRIES, M . F . R . and TOULOUSE, J. (1982). 'Top executive locus of
control and its relationship to strategy-making, structure and environment'. Academy of
Management Joumal, 2 5 , 2, 237-53.
MINTZBERG, H . (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
MINTZBERG, H . (1979). 'An emerging strategy of "direct" research'. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 4, 582-89.
MINTZBERG, H . , RAISINGHANI, D . and THEORET, A. (1976). 'The structure of "unstruc-
tured" decisions'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 1 , 2, 246-75.
MONTGOMERY, C . A., WERNERFELT, B . and BALAKRISHNAN, S. (1989). 'Strategy content
and the research process: A critique and commentary'. Strategic Management Joumat, 10,
2, 189-97.
NoRBURN, D. (1986). 'GOGOs, YOYOs, and DODOs: Company directors and industry
performance'. Strategic Management Joumal, 7, 2, 101-18.
PEARGE, J. A. (1983). 'The relationship of internal versus external orientations to financial
measures of strategic performance.' Strategic Management Joumal, 4, 4, 297-306.
PETTIGREW, A. M. (1973). The Politics of Organizational Decision Making. London: Tavistock.
PETHGREW, A . M . , FERUE, E . and MGKEE L . (1992). Shaping Strategy Change. London: Sage.
PLATr, J. R. (1964). 'Strong inference'. Science, 146, 347-53.
POLANYI, M. (1962). Personat Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PoRAG, J. F., THOMAS, H . , and BADEN-FULLER, C . (1989). 'Competitive groups as cognitive
communities: The case of Scottish knitwear'. Joumal of Management Studies, 26, 4, 3 9 7 -
416.
PORTER, M . E . (1981). 'The contributions of industrial organization to strategic manage-
ment'. Academy of Management Review, 6, 4, 609-20.
PORTER, M . E . (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
QUINN, J. B. (1980). Strate^sfor Charge: Logicat Incrementalism. Homewood, 111.: Irwin.
REID, D . M . (1989). 'Operationalizing strategic planning'. Strategic Management Joumal, 10,
6, 553-68.
RHYNE, L . C . (1986). 'The relationship of strategic planning to financial performance'.
Strategic Management Joumal, 7, 5, 423-36.
RiST, R. C. (1980). 'Blitzkrieg ethnography: On the transformation of a method to a
movement.' Educational Researcher, 9, 2, 8-10.
ROBINSON, R . B . and PEARGE, J. A. (1983). 'The impact of formalized strategic planning
on financial performance in small organizations'. Strategic Management Joumal, 4, 3, 197-
207.
ROHNER, R . P. (1977). 'Advantages of the comparative method of anthropology'. Behavior
Science Research, 12, 1, 117-44.
ROSENBERG, R . D . (1983). 'Business and national priorities for industrial development:
Intersectoral consensus in Israel'. Strategic Management Joumal, 4, 1, 67-78.
SCHWENK, C. R. and DALTON, D . R . (1991). 'The changing shape of strategic manage-
ment research'. In Shrivastava, P., Huff, A., and Dutton, J. (Eds.), Advances in Strategic
Management. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 277-300.

© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994

 HELD RESEARCH METHODS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 479

SGOTT, W . R . (1965). 'Field methods in the study of organizations'. In March, J. G. (Ed.),

Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 261-304.
SHORTELL, S. M . and ZAJAC, E . J. (1990). 'Perceptual and archival measures of Miles and
Snow's strategic types: A comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity'. Academy
of Management Joumal, 3 3 , 4, 817-32.
SHRIVASTAVA, P. and LIM, G . E . (1989). 'A profile of doctoral dissertations in strategic
management: A note'. Joumal of Management Studies, 26, 5, 531-40.
SNOW, C . C . and HAMBRIGK, D . C . (1980). 'Measuring organizational strategies:
Some theoretical and methodological problems'. Academy of Management Review, 5, 4,
527-38.
SNOW, C . C . and HREBINIAK, L . G . (1980). 'Strategy, distinctive competence, and organi-
zational performance'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 5 , 2, 317-35.
SouSA DE VASGONGELLOS E SA, J . A . and HAMBRICK, D . C . (1989). 'Key success factors:
Test of a general theory in the mature industrial sector'. Strategy Management Joumal, 10,
4, 367-82.
SUMMER, C. E . , BETTIS, R . A., DUHAIME, I. H., GRANT, J. H., HAMBRICK, D . C,
SNOW, C . C . and ZEITHARNL, C . P. (1990). 'Doctoral education in the field of business
policy and strategy'. Joumal of Management, 16, 2, 359—90.
THOMAS, J. B. and GIOIA, D . A. (1992). Strategic sensemaking in academic administra-
tion: Image, identity, and issue interpretation'. Working Paper, Pennsylvania State
University, Department of Management and Organization.
THOMAS, J. B. and MGDANIEL, R . R . (1990). 'Interpreting strategic issues: The role of
strategy and the information-processing structure of top management teams'. Academy of
Management Joumal, 3 3 , 2, 286-306.
THOMAS, J. B., DOORIS, M . and MGDANIEL, R . R . (1989). 'Strategic issue analysis: N G T
plus decision analysis for resolving strategic issues'. Joumal of Applied Behavioral Science,
25, 2, 189-200.
TROSTEL, A . O . and NICHOLS, M . L . (1982). 'Privately-held and publicly-held companies:
A comparison of strategic choices and management processes'. Academy of Management
Joumal, 2 5 , 1, 47-62.
VAN MAANEN, J . (1979). 'The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography'. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 3, 539-611.
VENKATRAMAN, N . (1990). 'Performance implications of strategic coalignment: A metho-
dological perspective'. Joumal of Management Studies, 27, 1, 19—41.
VENKATRAMAN, N . and GRANT, J. H. (1986). 'Construct measurement in organizational
strategy research: A critique and proposal'. Academy of Management Review, 1 1 , 1, 7 1 -
87.
VENKATRAMAN, N . and RAMANUJAM V. (1986). 'Measurement of business performance in
strategy research: A comparison of approaches'. Academy of Management Review, 1 1 , 4,
801-14.
VENKATRAMAN, N . and RAMANUJAM, V. (1987). 'Measurement of business economic per-
formance: An examination of method convergence'. Joumal of Management, 13, 1, 109-
22.
VENKATRAMAN, N . and ZAHEER, A. (1990). 'Electronic integration and strategic advantage:
A quasi-experimental study in the insurance industry'. Information Systems Research, 1, 4,
377-93.
WALTER, G . A. and BARNEY, J. B. (1990). 'Management objectives in mergers and acqui-
sitions'. State^ Management Joumal, 11, 1, 79—86.
WEIGK, K . E . (1969). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
WHETTEN, D . A . (1989). 'What constitutes a theoretical contribution?'. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 14, 4, 490-5.
YIN, R . K . (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage.

© BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994

480 CHARLES C. SNOW AND JAMES B. THOMAS

ZAHRA, S. A . and PEARGE, J. A., Ill (1992). 'Priorities of CEOs and strategic management
professors for future academic rtsearch,' Joumal of Management Issues, 4, 2, 171-89.
ZAJAC, E . J. and SHORTELL, S. M . (1989). 'Changing generic strategies: Likelihood, direc-
tion, and performance implications'. Strategic Management Joumal, 10, 3, 413-30.

BasU BlackweU Ltd 1994