Premium
Often called for but rarely chosen: alliance research that directly studies process
Author(s) -
Salk Jane E
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
european management review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.784
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 1740-4762
pISSN - 1740-4754
DOI - 10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500035
Subject(s) - alliance , reflexivity , plea , mainstream , process (computing) , field (mathematics) , sociology , field research , organizational field , epistemology , public relations , political science , social science , law , computer science , institutional theory , pure mathematics , operating system , philosophy , mathematics
Every so often, alliance scholars make cogent arguments for why the alliance field needs more process research. Rather than plea this case yet again, this paper explores why the field of alliance research continues to be overwhelmingly cross‐sectional and structural in nature. Looking at research published since the mid‐1990s, it appears that reflexive ‘calls for future process research’ crop up frequently. Even in cross‐sectional, structural research, authors evoke stories about processes, even if these processes depend on assumptions about actors and behaviors that lie outside of what is observable with their data and methods. What impedes the development of process research are norms and taken‐for‐granted routines within the mainstream scholarly community. I discuss implications of this reflexivity and how it might be challenged to rejuvenate and advance alliance research.