“I've Got a Theory Paper---Do You?”: Conceptual, Empirical, and Theoretical Contributions to Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences

Is “the field of management's devotion to theory too much of a good thing?” [Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Acad. Management J.50(6) 1346--1352]. In his paper, Hambrick criticizes the practice employed by many journals in the management field that requires that papers submitted for publication make a strong theoretical contribution. I argue that part of the problem is caused by the misunderstanding and misuse of the term “theory.” To clarify the status of theory, I review three modes of research formulation in the organizational sciences: theories, models, and conceptual frameworks. Language plays an important role in scientific research. I therefore discuss two research languages that are used in research in management that appear to be the farthest apart: mathematics, which is the language of precision; and narratives, which is the language that provides rich data. I provide a discussion of the use of mathematics in theory development and the use of narratives in research development. The two languages and three modes of research formulation are needed for contribution to knowledge, which should be the main goal of research in organization science.

[1]  Frederick Winslow Taylor,et al.  科学管理原理=The principles of scientific management , 2014 .

[2]  Børge Obel,et al.  Computational Modeling for What-Is, What-Might-Be, and What-Should-Be Studies - And Triangulation , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[3]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Roger L. M. Dunbar,et al.  Dealing with Unusual Experiences: A Narrative Perspective on Organizational Learning , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[5]  James G. March,et al.  The Ambiguities of Experience , 2010 .

[6]  R. Dawkins.  The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution , 2009 .

[7]  D. Hambrick.  THE FIELD OF MANAGEMENT'S DEVOTION TO THEORY: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING? , 2007 .

[8]  Anita Elberse,et al.  The Power of Stars: Do Star Actors Drive the Success of Movies? , 2007 .

[9]  Eva Regnier,et al.  A Dynamic Decision Model Applied to Hurricane Landfall , 2006 .

[10]  Christopher Landauer,et al.  ‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory’ , 2004, Child welfare.

[11]  Mark J. Zbaracki,et al.  Managerial and Customer Costs of Price Adjustment: Direct Evidence from Industrial Markets , 2003, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[12]  Sridhar Seshadri,et al.  Managerial Allocation of Time and Effort: The Effects of Interruptions , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Jamal Shamsie,et al.  Critical Push: Strategies for Creating Momentum in the Motion Picture Industry , 2000 .

[14]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  The Impact of Information Technology on Coordination: Evidence From the B-2 , 1999 .

[15]  S. Ravid.  Information, Blockbusters and Stars? A Study of the Film Industry , 1997 .

[16]  Peter S. Fader,et al.  An Elimination by Aspects Model of Consumer Response to Promotion Calibrated on UPC Scanner Data , 1990 .

[17]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[18]  Z. Shapira.  Task choice and assigned goals as determinants of task motivation and performance , 1989 .

[19]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words , 1989 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Decision, probability, and utility: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[21]  Zur Shapira,et al.  On the use of facet analysis in organizational behavior research: Some conceptual considerations and an example , 1979 .

[22]  Zur Shapira,et al.  Expectancy determinants of intrinsically motivated behavior. , 1976 .

[23]  R. Harris.  The uncertain connection between verbal theories and research hypotheses in social psychology , 1976 .

[24]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[25]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[26]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[27]  P C Wason,et al.  Reasoning about a Rule , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[28]  E. A. Locke.  Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives , 1968 .

[29]  P. Meehl.  Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox , 1967, Philosophy of Science.

[30]  J. Platt.  Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. , 1964, Science.

[31]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[32]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[33]  J. W. Atkinson.  Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. , 1957, Psychological review.

[34]  Louis Guttman,et al.  An Outline of Some New Methodology for Social Research , 1954 .

[35]  K. Lewin,et al.  Field theory in social science , 1951 .

[36]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[37]  H. G. Hartman.  Science and Epistemology , 1916 .

[38]  Kevin G. Corley,et al.  Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, , . , 2011 .

[39]  Mario Livio,et al.  Is God a Mathematician , 2009 .

[40]  J. Bruner.  Acts of meaning , 1990 .

[41]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  Mathematics, science and epistemology: Indexes , 1978 .

[42]  F. Dyson,et al.  A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919 , 1920 .