The article discusses the challenges of the strategy-as-practice research agenda, which seeks to understand strategy as a social practice rather than a top-down process. It defines strategy as socially accomplished activity, constructed through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors and the situated practices upon which they draw. The article proposes a conceptual framework of praxis, practices, and practitioners to address key questions in strategy-as-practice research, such as what strategy is, who a strategist is, what strategists do, what an analysis of strategists and their doings explains, and how existing organization and social theory can inform an analysis of strategy-as-practice. The article highlights the importance of understanding strategy as a social practice, emphasizing the role of practitioners, practices, and praxis in shaping strategic activity. It argues that strategy-as-practice research should focus on the situated, socially accomplished nature of strategy, rather than on formalized, top-down processes. The article also discusses the challenges of this research agenda, including the need to understand the role of practitioners, the interconnection between practices and praxis, and the implications of different theoretical approaches for strategy-as-practice research. The article suggests that strategy-as-practice research should draw upon a range of existing theories to explore the strategy problems defined within its conceptual framework, develop novel methods and research designs for their study, and advance explanations of how strategy is accomplished using these different levels and units of analysis. It also emphasizes the importance of developing a deeper understanding of the theoretical resources available to further the field of strategy-as-practice research and the specific implications of different theoretical approaches. The article concludes by highlighting the ongoing challenges for strategy-as-practice research, including the need for more empirical research, the development of a deeper understanding of the theoretical resources available, and the importance of considering the methodological implications of different theoretical approaches. It also suggests that the field of strategy-as-practice research is still in its early stages and that there is much work to be done to fully understand the nature of strategy as a social practice.The article discusses the challenges of the strategy-as-practice research agenda, which seeks to understand strategy as a social practice rather than a top-down process. It defines strategy as socially accomplished activity, constructed through the actions, interactions, and negotiations of multiple actors and the situated practices upon which they draw. The article proposes a conceptual framework of praxis, practices, and practitioners to address key questions in strategy-as-practice research, such as what strategy is, who a strategist is, what strategists do, what an analysis of strategists and their doings explains, and how existing organization and social theory can inform an analysis of strategy-as-practice. The article highlights the importance of understanding strategy as a social practice, emphasizing the role of practitioners, practices, and praxis in shaping strategic activity. It argues that strategy-as-practice research should focus on the situated, socially accomplished nature of strategy, rather than on formalized, top-down processes. The article also discusses the challenges of this research agenda, including the need to understand the role of practitioners, the interconnection between practices and praxis, and the implications of different theoretical approaches for strategy-as-practice research. The article suggests that strategy-as-practice research should draw upon a range of existing theories to explore the strategy problems defined within its conceptual framework, develop novel methods and research designs for their study, and advance explanations of how strategy is accomplished using these different levels and units of analysis. It also emphasizes the importance of developing a deeper understanding of the theoretical resources available to further the field of strategy-as-practice research and the specific implications of different theoretical approaches. The article concludes by highlighting the ongoing challenges for strategy-as-practice research, including the need for more empirical research, the development of a deeper understanding of the theoretical resources available, and the importance of considering the methodological implications of different theoretical approaches. It also suggests that the field of strategy-as-practice research is still in its early stages and that there is much work to be done to fully understand the nature of strategy as a social practice.