پژوهش استراتژیک نوردیک – موضوعات، نظریه ها و روند  Nordic strategy research—Topics, theories, and trends

1. Introduction Much of what is claimed about important research fields is based on an assumption of research as evenly spread across nations. As one of the most prominent fields in business research, strategy is often described as global, and with an impressive theoretical variation and richness (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2005). Further, some studies have distinguished the varied contributions of strategy research in (Cummings & Daellenbach, 2009) and between different journals (Azar & Brock, 2008). However, little heed has been given potential differences in the contributions of different regions or nations to strategy research. Instead, dominatingly, assessments of the field are dominated by geographically homogenous accounts (Bowman, Singh, & Thomas, 2006; Furrer, Thomas, & Goussevskaia, 2008; Herrmann, 2005; Hoskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999; Phelan, Ferreira, & Salvador, 2002; Ramos-Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004), disregarding such potential differences between regions and countries. The Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden – constitute one such region. While there are several influential researchers tied to Nordic universities publishing in avowedly international strategic management journals (e.g. Foss & Hallberg, 2014; Regnér, 2008; Vaara, Junni, Sarala, Ehrnrooth, & Koveshnikov, 2014) this reveals little about the Nordic contributions to the international strategy field. For instance, studying business publications in general, Engwall (1996) found that Nordic scholars differed both in publication frequency and theoretical starting points compared to non-Nordics, such as an early and strong influence by Cyert and March (1963). Nordic business research also has been found to emphasize network relations rather than economics-based views, and draws on a strong case study tradition compared to international research (Stentoft Arlbjørn, Jonsson, & Johansen, 2008), suggesting not only that contributions also to international strategy research can differ between regions and countries, and that the Nordics might stand out in different ways. Given the centrality of strategy research and the tendency to describe this field as conceptually diverse but geographically homogenous, the overarching question remains whether there are differences in strategy publication between and within regions. Recent studies have pointed to both similarities and differences in publication patterns between Nordic institutions, and between these and institutions in non-Nordic countries (Sihvonen & Vähämaa, 2015), however not explicitly addressed the strategy field. The condition of Nordic strategy research likely is of interest also beyond scholars in the field, since if left unstudied, universities, funding agencies, and policy makers risk investing scarce resources for research less than optimally. The above arguments give rise to a number of important questions: are there any trends to the extent to which Nordic scholars publish in leading strategy journals, and are there differences between the Nordic countries? Do Nordic research favor certain strategy topics or theories over others? What is the impact of this research, and are there any patterns with regards to the author constellations producing it?