This paper aims to review how different approaches to social inquiry (e.g. positivist, postpositivist, interpretive, postmodernist and critical theory) have been used in strategy research and how these main paradigms engage with strategy. In a fragmented domain, debates typically match paradigms to schools of thought and use the paradigm concept, sometimes even promiscuously, to examine the underlying premises of different theories. Thus, scholars tend to overlook the debate on philosophical meta‐theoretical assumptions (ontological, epistemological and methodological) and prefer onto‐epistemological approaches that are considered to be ‘normal science’, which underestimate the contributions of certain less traditional streams of research. This review offers a fresh view of the philosophical foundations of the strategic literature by combining author co‐citation and content analysis of a sample of academic sources and analyses both the meta‐theoretical assumptions and the basic paradigmatic assumptions for central constructs that strategy researchers attach to their frameworks (e.g. strategy, environment, firm and strategist). This endeavour enables scholars who work in a multidisciplinary field to gain a better understanding of the philosophical beliefs, principles and conventions held by different research communities and theoretical approaches. Exposing the underlying assumptions, as is done in this study, is a key step in theory development. Hence, this review can help researchers, young scholars and doctoral students navigate a confusing research landscape, problematize the existing literature and set new research questions.

中文翻译：

---

战略管理哲学基础的（再）回顾

本文旨在回顾在战略研究中如何使用不同的社会探究方法（例如实证主义，后实证主义，解释性，后现代主义和批判理论）以及这些主要范式如何与战略互动。在支离破碎的领域中，辩论通常将范式与思想流派相匹配，并使用范式概念（有时甚至是混杂地使用）来检验不同理论的潜在前提。因此，学者们倾向于忽略关于哲学元理论假设（本体论，认识论和方法论）的争论，而倾向于被认为是“正常科学”的本体论方法，这低估了某些传统研究较少的贡献。通过将作者的引文和学术样本的内容分析相结合，并为战略研究人员所附加的中心构架的元理论假设和基本范式假设进行了分析，本综述为战略文献的哲学基础提供了新的视角。他们的框架（例如战略，环境，公司和战略家）。这项工作使从事多学科研究的学者能够更好地理解不同研究团体和理论方法所持有的哲学信念，原则和惯例。像本研究一样，揭示基本假设是理论发展的关键步骤。因此，这篇评论可以帮助研究人员，年轻学者和博士生浏览令人困惑的研究环境，