Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

An Interview with Robert Chia: Talking about Practice Theory and Social Change

Rain

Abstract

Studies of organisational change often treat stability as the norm and change as something that happens to otherwise settled entities. Robert Chia challenges this view, starting with the claim that change is continuous, pervasive, and prior to the temporary stabilisations we call organisations or structures. Drawing on Bergson, Whitehead, James, Bourdieu, and Dreyfus, Robert develops a processual account in which practices emerge through situated coping and responsiveness rather than through moments of deliberate intervention in otherwise stable systems. In discussing this approach, our interview with Robert ranges across questions of agency, purpose, environment, materiality, and the distinction between ‘owned’ and ‘unowned’ change. We consider what it means to understand structures as ossified practices, how practitioners respond to unfolding situations, and how an emphasis on process reframes familiar debates about intentionality, stability, and transformation.

Keywords

coping, purposeful, purposive, response, owned/unowned, ossified

PDF HTML

References

  1. Bergson, H. ([1911] 2022). Creative Evolution. Routledge. Translated by Landes, D. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315537818
  2. Chia, R. (1999) ‘A ‘Rhizomic’ Model of Organizational Change and Transformation: Perspective from a Metaphysics of Change’. British Journal of Management, 10(3), pp. 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00128
  3. Chia, R. (2014) ‘Reflections: In Praise of Silent Transformation - Allowing Change Through ‘Letting Happen’. Journal of Change Management, 14(1), pp. 8-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.841006
  4. Chia, R. and Mackay, D. (2023) Strategy-in-Practices: A Process-Philosophical Perspective on Strategy-Making. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009099592
  5. Chia, R. and Holt, R. (2023) Strategy, Intentionality and Success: Four Logics for Explaining Strategic Action. Organization Theory, 4(3), Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231186436
  6. Gould, S. (1991) ‘Exaptation: A Crucial Tool for an Evolutionary Psychology’. Journal of Social Issues, 47, pp. 43-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb01822.x
  7. James, W. (1911) Some Problems of Philosophy: A Beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy. Longmans, Green, and Co. [No DOI Available]
  8. Lewin, K. (1947) ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Equilibrium and Social Change. Human Relations 1(1), pp. 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
  9. Orlikowski, W. (2006) ‘Material Knowing: The Scaffolding of Human Knowledgeability’, European Journal of Information Systems, 15(5), pp. 460–466. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000639
  10. Sahlins, M. ([1972] 2020) Stone Age Economics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003058762
  11. Shove, E., Baeriswyl , M., and Orlikowski, W. (2025) ‘An Interview with Wanda Orlikowski: Careers and Ideas in Practice’, The Journal of Practice Theory, 1, pp. 29-35. https://doi.org/10.71936/sb57-ps06
  12. Tsoukas, H., and Chia, R. (2002) On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. Organization Science, 13(5), pp. 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
  13. Van de Ven, A. (1987) ‘Review Essay: Four Requirements for Processual Analysis’. In Pettigrew, A. (Ed.), The Management of Strategic Change. Blackwell. [No DOI available]
  14. Whitehead, A. (1925) Science and the Modern World: Lowell Lectures. Cambridge Univerity Press. [No DOI available]. Available at: https://dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/b29978531/b29978531.pdf

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.