English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Orientation: In 2009, Strategy-as-Practice (S-as-P) research, as a subfield of strategy research, was grouped into nine different domains, and researchers were advised to frame their research within these domains. The papers or works (herein used interchangeably) published with S-as-P as subject, were counted, categorised, and a typology matrix was constructed.Researchers use this count to indicate a need for research in a specific domain.Research purpose: The main purpose of this study is to construct a comparative S-as-P typology matrix which accurately depicts the number of papers published in each domain between 2008 and 2015.Motivation for the study: The S-as-P typology matrix was first published in 2009 (Jarzabkowski &amp; Spee 2009), and at the present moment, six years later, researchers still use the dated number of papers counted in each of the S-as-P domains to indicate a research gap.Research design, approach and method: A content analysis of all papers, listed by researchers on the official S-as-P website, was conducted. The papers were disseminated and key variables were counted.Main findings: The comparative typology matrix shows that relative to other domains, domain D appears overly researched, whilst no research has been carried out on domains C and H from 2008 to 2015.Practical/managerial implications: The comparative S-as-P typology matrix allows researchers to accurately evaluate the need for current research within the chosen domain.Contribution/value-add: The comparative typology matrix should prevent, as is the case currently with domain D, that domains are over-researched, whilst others receive no research attention.

The next step in the strategy–as–practice evolution: A comparative typology matrix