This research explores how an open strategy approach can be used to manage organisational legitimacy in a pluralistic context, characterised by the competing demands of key stakeholders. Open strategy demonstrates an interest in strategising processes becoming more inclusive and transparent (Hautz et al., 2016). Open strategy work to date has focused on its uses and implications, and how strategic inclusion and transparency are being displayed in different organisational contexts. Much open strategy literature also associates the central purpose of open strategising activity with organisations seeking to manage legitimacy (e.g. Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007; Whittington et al., 2011; Tavakoli et al., 2017), particularly through ensuring that their actions are desirable in the opinion of key stakeholders (Suchman, 1995). Whilst a small number of studies have explicitly focused on open strategy and legitimacy, these do not go beyond illuminating legitimacy as a potential effect (Gegenhuber and Dobusch, 2017) or outcome (Luedicke et al., 2017). Absent has been research attempting to specifically understand open strategy as a process of legitimation (Uberbacher, 2014), and there remains a need to unpack and elevate the significant potential of open strategy approaches for managing legitimacy further. To address this gap, this research presents an in-depth single case analysis of an organisation undertaking the development of a new four-year strategic plan using an open strategy approach. A number of data collection methods were used, including completion of 30 semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and collection of significant social media and documentation data, to explicate the concepts of open strategy and organisational legitimacy, addressing the question; How does an open strategy approach represent a process of legitimation for managing the competing demands of organisational stakeholders? . A pluralistic context, a UK-based professional body, is the basis for the empirical work. It is acknowledged that interrogating the intricacies of strategising in pluralistic contexts, and the inherent competing demands of stakeholders, might offer new perspectives, and a useful means of expanding the contextual base of practice-based strategy work (Jarzabkowski and Fenton, 2006). However, studies of open strategy in pluralistic contexts remain near non-existent in the literature (Lusiani and Langley, 2013). In the organisational legitimacy literature, there is much discourse on how legitimacy is managed and gained through specific legitimation processes and strategies, and increasingly such a focus has been adopted to recognise how organisations might manage legitimacy demands in contexts defined by plurality, amidst diffuse power and divergent objectives (Denis et al., 2007). In this study, a practice-based activity theory framework is used (Jarzabkowski 2005; Jarzabkowski and Wolf, 2015) to explore legitimacy in relation to organisational direction and priorities, and as a means of redefining the organisation s core goals in an enactment of strategic openness. The work here conceptualises how the case organisation has adopted a plethora of open strategising practices for legitimacy effects (Suddaby et al., 2013), providing a detailed account of how different dynamics of open strategising activity connect to specific forms of legitimation over time. The findings indicate that different open strategy dynamics represent the case organisation switching between distinct approaches to legitimation, as a means of managing the competing legitimacy demands of organisational stakeholders in a flow of activity. Through this narrative, a greater perception of legitimation as a core purpose of open strategy is provided. Overall, this research offers an important contribution by accentuating the principal relevance of organisational legitimacy in open strategising, particularly through elevating legitimacy beyond being understood as an effect or outcome in open strategy work. Further, this more explicitly brings open strategy into close alignment with the organisational legitimacy literature and its theoretical conceptions (Lawrence et al., 2009; Suddaby et al., 2013), which is imperative for understanding the potential importance of open strategy as a means of legitimation.

資訊時代的來臨，使得館員自身的工作範圍變得更多元，而館員的工作不在侷限於傳統的流通、編目以及傳統的參考服務。讀者對於館員的要求也不再只是「借還書的圖書館員」，對於圖書館的要求也不再只是「借還書的地方」，讀者對館員的要求是，多元的資訊服務，以提高圖書館整體的服務品質。因此，在此種環境下，館員必須利用不斷地自我學習及接受繼續教育等管道獲得新知，增加自我的工作能力，跟上時代的需求，滿足讀者的資訊需求，因此繼續教育對館員的成長非常重要。 本研究採用文獻分析與比較研究法，研究的目的，是希望藉由英美兩國圖書館學會對於館員的繼續教育情形作借鏡與整理，讓我國圖書館學會能根據英美圖書館學會的先例以及方式，選擇適合我國圖書館學會舉行繼續教育的方式與課程。 英國圖書館學會在西元2002年與資訊科學學會合併，對於英國圖書館學界來說，是一個很大的轉變，其中對於研習班與特殊興趣小組而言，更是增加了一些與資訊科學相關的研習班與興趣小組，因此，讓圖書館學不再只是傳統的圖書館學，而是因應時代成為資訊化社會的圖書館。美國圖書館學會對於繼續教育十分的重視，除了每年藉由年會所舉辦的各個主題的研習班之外，更在西元1999年開始了專業教育會議（Congresses on Professional Education，簡稱COPE），在近幾年已經舉辦三次，每次所探討的重點不一，其中以第二次專業教育會議（COPE II）對於專業館員的繼續教育作了很深刻的討論，並將討論的結果交付美國圖書館學會實行與研議。 英美圖書館學會對於繼續教育的比較，可分成四個部分作比較，由於國情的不同，因此兩國對於館員繼續教育的方式除了一般的研習班之外，英國多了所謂的特殊興趣小組，讓會員們能根據自己的喜好而加入與學習，而美國則是對於繼續教育的政策與實行的方式舉辦了專業教育會議，讓圖書館專業人員對於繼續教育的認可、與制度有重新的認識與方針。 最後就英美圖書館學會的繼續教育的優點，向中國圖書館學會提出的建議為：（一）建立中國圖書館學會的領導地位；（二）制定館員的繼續專業教育計畫；（三）擬定圖書館員的繼續專業訓練手冊；（四）加強研習班的內容多元化；（五）研擬圖書館員繼續教育的認可制度。 / In the information age, the librarians can not be traditional librarians. Just working for the traditional circulation、cataloging and traditional service. Facing the information technology evolution, librarians must adopt new strategies and educate themselves through continuing education. This thesis presents the continuing education policy and workshop in the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and in the American Library Association (ALA). CILIP’s aim is to provide the highest quality workshops, onsite training and executive briefings for all library and information staff. All our workshops are tailored to meet the learning, training and developmental needs of the modern library and information community. And every Member of CILIP is entitled to join two Special Interest Groups free of charge. In the ALA, 1999 Annual Conference meeting the ALA Executive Board, decided to set up for a subcommittee with developing a preliminary outline for a 2nd Congress on Professional Education. The appointment of a steering committee to plan such a congress was approved at the Board’s Fall 1999 meeting with the 2nd Congress to be held late in 2000. Finally, according to the results of the study, several suggestions are provided: 1.Establishing the leader position for the Library Association, R.O.C.；2. Drafting the Librarians Training Headbook for the continuing education； 3. Diversifying the contents of workshops； 4. Formulating the plan for the continuing education of the librarians； 5 Drafting a system for the accreditation of the continuing education of the librarians.