Search

In this chapter, we compare Routine Dynamics and Strategy as Practice based on an extended literature review. Routine Dynamics and Strategy as Practice are distinctive communities of thought in organization studies that exhibit a number of striking parallels: both subscribe to the overall “practice turn” in the social sciences, seek to bring the human being back in, and focus predominantly on the level of action involved in organizational routines and strategy, respectively. In our comparison of similarities and differences of Routine Dynamics and Strategy as Practice, we focus on their empirical domains, underlying theoretical perspectives, research frameworks, levels of analysis, and empirical methods employed. Based on that, we discuss what Routine Dynamics can learn from Strategy as Practice and vice versa. We conclude with some general reflections on the future relation between the two research communities and develop an agenda for future research that facilitates cross-fertilizations between the two research communities.

The intensive use of hazardous pesticides in California agriculture disproportionately harms farmworkers and their families, the majority of whom are low-income, Latina/o immigrants. While many stakeholders, such as advocates and farmworkers, oppose existing pesticide use practices due to disparate pesticide-related health impacts, other stakeholders, such as agriculture representatives and government bureaucrats, defend existing practices. Addressing pesticide-related health disparities has involved intensive conflict and debate due to the diverse interests, competing demands, and uncertainties involved. Stakeholders in Ventura County have debated the legitimacy of local pesticide use practices for decades. I explore how stakeholders cope with pesticide-related health disparities and unpack the underlying dynamics that make it difficult to challenge power asymmetries in public debate and problem-solving efforts. Through a qualitative, ethnographic case study of Ventura County, California, this study answers the following questions: 1) How do local stakeholders’ positionalities, claims, and rhetorical strategies around the legitimacy of existing pesticide use practices impact public debate and problem-solving efforts? 2) How do the interests and concerns of farmworkers and their representatives become obscured and disregarded in public debate? To answer these questions, I employed an interpretative, grounded theory approach to data collection and data analysis. I conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 91 agricultural health stakeholders, as well as over 200 hours of participant and non-participant observations. I also collected numerous archival materials. I analyzed the positionalities and discursive practices of four different stakeholder groups – advocates, farmworkers, agriculture representatives, and government bureaucrats.I found that while all these stakeholders support reducing hazardous pesticide use to some extent, they also share a dominant discou