دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله دلیل نیاز ما به نظریه در علوم سازمانی (نشریه وایلی 2016)

چرا در علوم سازمان به تئوری نیاز داریم؟

Why we need theory in the organization sciences

Summary

To make the case that theory is a necessary part of research in the organization sciences, I develop three lines of argument. In the first, drawing upon Staw and Sutton’s (1995, “What theory is not” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384) classic piece, I outline the boundaries of theory and, using a recently published empirical article as an example, demonstrate how research based on literature references and line‐and‐box diagrams instead of explanatory theory can make only a limited contribution to the literature. I next discuss more generally the pitfalls of conducting research without first developing theory, citing the example of malaria. In the final section of the article, I defend the role of theory‐review articles, such as those published in the Academy of Management Review, and illustrate (again by reference to an example) how such articles are critical to advancing organizational research.

1 Introduction

Huffman and Dowdell (2015) define theory as “a systematic, interrelated set of concepts that explain a body of data” (p. 21). In this point–counterpoint article, I argue that research in the organization sciences cannot advance without being based in the first instance on an “interrelated set of concepts” used in turn to explain the nature of phenomena and the relationships between them. To make this case, I will proceed in three sections. In the first, based on Sutton and Staw’s (1995) classic article, “What theory is not,” I outline the boundaries of theory and use an example to illustrate the consequences of insufficiently developed theory. In the next section, I discuss in more detail what the world would be like in the absence of theory, making the point that credible research cannot proceed without reference to theory. In the final section, I discuss the contribution of theory articles in the organization sciences with particular reference to the Academy of Management Review and argue that theory articles are critical to the advancement of scholarly knowledge in our field.

What Theory Is, and What It Is Not

It has been 20 years since Sutton and Staw (1995) outlined the boundaries of what constitutes theory in the organization sciences. In effect, Sutton and Staw provide an obverse definition of theory by outlining a set of five characteristics of “What theory is not.”

1. Theory is not a set of literature references. Sutton and Staw (1995) point out in particular that while references to past literature can be used to set the background to a theoretical position, they cannot be used like a “a smoke screen to hide the absence of theory” (p. 373). In this regard, literature may be used to develop theory—a chain of logically linked propositions leading to a conclusion—but do not substitute for theory.

2. Theory is not a set of data. Sutton and Staw (1995, p.373) point out that, “Empirical evidence plays an important role in confirming, revising, or discrediting existing theory and in guiding the development of new theory” but, like references to the literature (in effect, other people’s data), they do not substitute for theory.

3. Theory is not a list of variables and/or constructs. In this regard, Sutton and Staw (1995, pp. 374–375) note that, “simply listing a set of antecedents does not make a theoretical argument.” They note further that, “The key issue is why a particular set of variables are (sic) expected to be strong predictors” (emphasis added). Thus, it is not variables per se that constitute theory, but the relationships between them, together with justification for the relationships.

4. Theory is not a figure or diagram. The point here is that theory is more than just a set of variables and relationships. In this regard, while Sutton and Staw (1995, p. 376) acknowledge that figures and diagrams (“boxes and arrows”) can be useful adjuncts to explaining theory, they note that a figure does not substitute for “logical explanations” as to why particular variables should be connected.

5. Theory is not a set of hypotheses/predictions. The point here is similar to the last one. This is that hypotheses/predictions are essentially descriptive tools used to clarify expected outcome of research. As such, “Hypotheses are concise statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur” (Sutton & Staw, 1995, p. 377, emphasis added).