What_theory_is_not_by_Sutton_N_Staw_ASQ95

人力

ASQ Forum What Theory is Not Robert 1. SuttonStanfordUniversity

Barry M. Stawat Universityof California Berkeley

This essay describes differences between papers that is contain some theory rather than no theory. The~re little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, but there is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory. Despite this consensus, however, authors routinely use these five elements in lieu of theory. We explain how each of these five elements can be confused with theory and how to avoid such confusion. By making this consensus explicit, we hope to help authors avoid some of the most common and easily averted problems that lead readers to view papers as having inadequate theory. We then discuss how journals might facilitate the publication of stronger theory. We suggest that if the field is serious about producing stronger theory, journals need to reconsider their empirical requirements. We argue that journals ought to be more receptive to papers that test part rather than all of a theory and use illustrative rather than definitive data. The authors, reviewers, readers, and editors who shape what is publishedin ASQ insist, perhaps above all else, that theory. ASQ's Notice to articles contain strong organizational states,"If manuscriptscontain no theory, their Contributors reason, sometimes the primary value is suspect." A primary reason, that reviewers and editors decide not to publisha submitted paper is that it contains inadequatetheory. This paper draws on our editorialexperiences at ASQ and Behavior(ROB)to identifysome Research in Organizational common reasons why papers are viewed as havingweak theory. Authorswho wish to write strong theory might start by that seeks to define theory and readingthe diverse literature distinguishweak from strong theory. The Academy of Management Review publisheda forum on theory buildingin October 1989. Detaileddescriptionsof what theory is and the distinctionsbetween strong and weak theory in the social sciences can be found, for example, in Dubin's (1976) analysis of theory buildingin appliedareas, Freese's (1980) (1964) philosophical review of formaltheorizing,Kaplan's into the behavioralsciences, Merton's (1967) writings inquiry on theoreticalsociology, and Weick's (1989) ideas about theory constructionas disciplinedimagination. on the Unfortunately, literature theory buildingcan leave a readermore ratherthan less confused about how to write a paperthat contains strong theory (Freese, 1980). There is lack of agreement about whether a model and a theory can be distinguished,whether a typology is properlylabeled a theory or not, whether the strength of a theory depends on is how interesting it is, and whether falsifiability a prerequisitefor the very existence of a theory. As Merton (1967: 39) put it:Likeso many words that are bandiedabout, the word theory threatens to become meaningless. Because its re

ferents are so diverse-including everythingfrom minorworkinghypotheses, throughcomprehensive but vague and unorderedspeculations, to axiomaticsystems of thought-use of the word often obscures

? 1995 by CornellUniversity./$1 0001-8392/95/4003-0371 .00. We are gratefulto Steve Barley,Max DanielBrass, GaryAlanFine, Bazerman, James March, LindaPike, RobertKahn, Marshall Meyer, KeithMurnighan, Christine Oliver,and DavidOwens for to theircontributions this essay. This while the first author essay was prepared was a Fellowat the Centerfor Advanced Sciences. We Studyin the Behavioral assistance the appreciate financial by provided the Hewlett-Packard Science and Corporation the National Foundation (SBR-9022192).

thancreatesunderstanding. rather

371/AdministrativeScience Quarterly,40 (1995): 371-384

人力

Lackof consensus on exactly what theory is may explain why it is so difficultto develop strong theory in the behavioralsciences. Reviewers, editors, and other audiences may hold inconsistent beliefs about what constitutes theory and what constitutes strong versus weak theory. Aspiring organizational theorists face furtherobstacles because there is little consensus about which theoreticalperspectives (and associated jargon)are best suited for describing organizations and their members (Pfeffer, 1993). Even when a paper contains a well-articulated theory that fits the data, editors or reviewers may reject it or insist the theory be replaced simply because it clashes with their particular the conceptual tastes. Finally, process of buildingtheory is itself full of internalconflicts and contradictions. Organizational scholars, like those in other social science fields, are forced to make tradeoffs between generality, simplicity,and accuracy(Weick, 1979) and are challenged by havingto write logicallyconsistent and integrated arguments. These difficultiesmay help explainwhy researchjournalshave such high rejection organizational rates. Writingstrong theory is time consuming and fraught with trialand errorfor even the most skilledorganizational scholars. This is also why there is such great appreciationfor those few people, like James March,Jeffrey Pfeffer, and Karl Weick, who are able to do it consistently. We don't have any magic ideas about how to construct importantorganizational theory. We will not present a set of algorithmsor logicalsteps for buildingstrong theory. The aim of this essay is more modest. We explainwhy some papers, or parts of papers, are viewed as containingno theory at all ratherthan containingsome theory. Though there is conflict about what theory is and should be, there is more consensus about what theory is not. We consider five features of a scholarlyarticlethat, while importantin their own right,do not constitute theory. Reviewers and editors seem to agree, albeit implicitly, that these five features should not be construed as partof the theoreticalargu …… 此处隐藏：43899字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……