123 /274
臺大管理論叢
第
27
卷第
4
期
123
practice perspective that goes hand in hand with direct research and close observation as a
broad research paradigm. Exploratory in nature and discursively based, our study follows the
same methods as practice-related studies to examine what people actually do and say in their
strategy activities.
We employ both primary and secondary data sources. The primary data include more
than 40 working meetings, a consulting meeting (the First Science and Technology
Development Advisory Board Meeting), and a two-day formal conference. We have
transcribed our records, generating more than 200,000 Chinese words. Secondary sources
were also used considerably to supplement and verify data gathered in field studies. The
process of data collection continued until we reached the level of theoretical saturation,
meaning we were getting quite repetitive answers that did not dig any deeper.
We developed three strategy tools for the design and delivery of agenda setting. These
include problematizing, futurizing, and corresponding. Built on causal reasoning, actors can
inscribe problematizations of institutionalized practices in texts in order to allow their ideas
to travel across separate and diverse local settings and to be worthily credited. Futurizing
includes roadmapping, foresights, and scenario planning, which have the potential to manage
the present by looking into a particular certainty in the future. Corresponding refers to the
practice of transferring a discourse to a competitive comparison or to a metaphorical
reinterpretation. We also point out moralizing as a moderator of such a strategic and creative
process.
Despite the limitation of a single case study, our research should provide important
implications for strategy practices, strategy workshops, and open strategy, as well as
practicing managers. First, it extends the research on strategy practices and activities to
include analysis of language-meeting relationships. It also develops and promotes the use of
action research in practice-related studies. Second, for research on strategy meetings and
workshops, our work responds to the call to recognize agenda setting as a key strategic
episode central to the day-to-day activities of professional managers or political groups.
Third, our study also adds to the recent study of open strategy and open government by
analyzing the openness of strategic practices. Fourth, we respond to Aristotle’s classic
formulation of logos, pathos, and ethos as three key elements of persuasion, whereas our
analysis also addresses the significance of a variety of legitimacy, pragmatism, morality, and
cognition, in securing support and credibility. To conclude, we argue that a policy is more
likely to be effectively legitimated and justified if it is propagated by actors who bring
together several types of process skills, e.g., problematizing, futurizing, and corresponding.