<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Research Institute of Strategic Studies (RISS)</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Strategic Studies Quarterly</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>1735-0727</Issn>
				<Volume>15</Volume>
				<Issue>58</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2013</Year>
					<Month>07</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Historical- discursive transformation of strategy</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Historical- discursive transformation of strategy</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>109</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>142</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">2989</ELocationID>
			
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Reza</FirstName>
					<LastName>Khalili</LastName>
<Affiliation></Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0003-1279-8737</Identifier>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2012</Year>
					<Month>04</Month>
					<Day>23</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Abstract  The concept of strategy like many other concepts has been defined based on different temporal and spatial conditions, and everyone has defined it on his own perception. This article focusing on the concept of strategy, tries to analyse historical-discursive transformation of this concept to distinguish ambiguities and complexities of existing definitions, to show that these definitions are not a given ones, and can be de/re-construct.  The main question of this article is to understand the logic of conceptual transformation of strategy, which author claims that can be best understood using historical-discursive method. In other words, this article instead of pure historical narration, or sole focus on given definitions, tries to combine both methods. Author by putting every definition in it’s historical context, tries to make ahistorical and meta-theoretical understanding of strategy.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">Abstract  The concept of strategy like many other concepts has been defined based on different temporal and spatial conditions, and everyone has defined it on his own perception. This article focusing on the concept of strategy, tries to analyse historical-discursive transformation of this concept to distinguish ambiguities and complexities of existing definitions, to show that these definitions are not a given ones, and can be de/re-construct.  The main question of this article is to understand the logic of conceptual transformation of strategy, which author claims that can be best understood using historical-discursive method. In other words, this article instead of pure historical narration, or sole focus on given definitions, tries to combine both methods. Author by putting every definition in it’s historical context, tries to make ahistorical and meta-theoretical understanding of strategy.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Key words: strategy</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Discourse</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">art of war</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">military command</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">national management</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">global engineering</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://quarterly.risstudies.org/article_2989_5848ad959570f87753a60ce8be1567f3.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
