Summary
Summary Papers Organization Theory
- Course
- Institution
A summary of all compulsory papers for the course Organization Theory.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
mathijsvdweert
Reviews received
Content preview
OT PapersPaper 1: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? (Whetten, D.,
1989) What is Organization theory?
Introduction
o The article is organized around three key questions:
What are the building blocks of theory development?
What is a legitimate value-added contribution to theory development?
What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
The building blocks of theory development
o A complete theory must contain 4 essential elements
What which factors should be considered as part of the explanation
of the social or individual phenomena of interest? 2 criteria exist for
this:
Comprehensiveness are all relevant factors included?
Parsimony should some factors be deleted because they
add little additional value to our understanding? It is generally
easier to delete unnecessary or invalid elements than it is to
justify additions.
Sensitivity to the competing virtues of parsimony and
comprehensiveness is the hallmark of a good theorist.
How How is the set of identifies factors related? This typically
introduces causality.
Together the “What” and “How” elements constitute the
domain or subject of the theory. A visual representation often
clarifies the author’s thinking and increases the reader’s
comprehension.
Why What are the underlying psychological, economic or social
dynamics that justify the selection of factors and the proposed causal
relationships?
This rationale glues the model together.
During the theory-development process, logic replaces data s
the basis for evaluation. Theorists must convince others that
their propositions make sense.
The mission of a theory-development journal is to challenge
and extend existing knowledge, not simply to rewrite it.
Combining the “How” and the “What” produces the typical
model from which testable propositions can be derived.
Who, Where, When These conditions place limitations on the
propositions generated from a theoretical model. These temporal and
contextual factors set the boundaries of generalizability, and as such
constitute the range of the theory.
o In the process of testing ideas in various settings, we discover the inherent
limiting conditions. In the absence of this breadth of experimental evidence,
we must be realistic regarding the extent of a theorist’s foreknowledge of all
the possible limitations on a theory’s applicability.
, What is a legitimate, value-added contribution to theory development?
o The previous described elements suggest a set of criteria for making editorial
judgments:
What and How although it is possible to make an important
theoretical contribution by simply adding or subtracting factors
(Whats) from an existing model, this process seldom satisfies
reviewers.
One way to demonstrate the value of a proposed change in a
list of factors is to identify how this change affects the
accepted relationships between the variables (Hows).
Why this is probably the most fruitful, but also the most difficult
avenue of theory development it commonly involves borrowing a
perspective from other fields, which encourages altering out
metaphors and gestalts in ways that challenge the underlying
rationales supporting accepted theories.
Who When, Where Generally, it is insufficient to point out
limitations in current conceptions of a theory’s range of application. In
addition, theorists need to understand why this anomaly exists, so
that they can revise the “How” and “What” of the model to
accommodate new information.
o The common element in advancing theory development by applying it in new
settings is the need for a theoretical feedback loop. Theorists need to learn
something new about the theory itself as a result of working with it under
different conditions.
What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
o The following list of seven key questions summarized the concerns raised
most frequently by our reviewers. Together they constitute a summary
answer to the broad question, “What constitutes a publishable theory
paper?”:
What’s new? Does the paper make a significant, value-added
contribution to current thinking?
So what? Will the theory likely change the practice of
organizational science in this area?
Why so? Are the underlying logic and supporting evidence
compelling?
Well done? Does the paper reflect seasoned thinking, conveying
completeness and thoroughness?
Done well? Is the paper well written with logical flows?
Why now? Is this topic of contemporary interest to scholars in this
area?
Who cares? What percentage of academic readers are interested in
this topic?
Paper 2: What Theory is Not (Sutton, R. and Staw, B., 1995) What is
organization theory?
Introduction
, o The essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory
rather than no theory.
o There is 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.
o Despite this consensus, authors routinely use these five elements in lieu of
theory. Conveniently, this lack of consensus on exactly what theory is may
explain why it is so difficult to develop strong theory in the behavioral
sciences.
o Aim of the paper explain why some papers, or parts of papers, are viewed
as containing no theory at all rather than containing some theory.
Part of an article that are not theory
o References are not theory
Listing references to existing theories and mentioning the names of
such theories is not the same as explicating the causal logic they
contain.
Authors have the tendency to only list the references without even
providing an explanation.
References are sometimes used as a smokescreen to hide the absence
of theory.
o Data are not theory
Observed patterns rarely constitute causal explanations. Data describe
which empirical patterns were observed and theory explains why
empirical patterns were observed or are expected to be observed.
Empirical results can certainly provide useful support for a theory, but
they should not be construed as theory themselves.
Prior findings cannot by themselves motivate hypotheses and the
reporting of results cannot substitute for causal reasoning.
o Lists of variables or construct are not theory
A list of variables is an important part of a theory, but does not alone
constitute theory. A theory must also explain why variables or
construct come about or why they are connected.
The key issue is why a particular set of variables are expected to be
strong predictors.
o Diagrams are not theory
Diagrams or figures van be a valuable part of a research paper but
also, by themselves, rarely constitute theory.
Figures are more helpful that show causal relationships so that readers
can see a chain of causation.
Regardless of their merits, diagrams and figures should be considered
as stage props rather than the performance itself.
o Hypotheses (or predictions) are not theory
Hypotheses serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making
explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical
argument will be operationalized.
But, hypotheses do not contain logical arguments about why empirical
relationships are expected to occur.
, Identifying strong theory
o Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts,
events, structure, and thoughts occur. It emphasizes the nature of causal
relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such
events.
o Strong theory delves into underlying processes so as to understand the
systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence.
o It is usually laced with a set of convincing and logically interconnected
arguments.
o A good theory explains, predicts and delights.
The case against theory
o So far, the suggestion has been made that theory is good, but this assumption
may not be universally shared. Some prominent researchers have argued the
case against theory. Examples:
The field needs more descriptive narratives about organizational life,
presumably based on intensive ethnographic work.
Quantitative researchers: it is more important to isolate a few
successful change efforts than it is to understand the causal nuances
underlying any particular outcome.
Theorists do not revision enough by going through rounds of
revision, a manuscript may end up with stronger theory.
Are we expecting too much?
o Without constant pressure for theory building, the field would surely slide to
its natural resting place in dust-bowl empiricism.
o The problem with theory building may also be structural Journals could be
placing authors in a double bind.
On the one hand, editors and reviewers plead for creative and
interesting ideas for there to be an important contribution to
organizational theory
On the other hand, authors are skewered for apparent mismatches
between their theory and data.
Providing a broad theory will usually lead to complaints that the
author did not measure all the variables in his or her model.
Providing a deep theory, in which intervening mechanisms or
processes are spelled out in graphic detail, may likewise lead to
objections that only the antecedent and consequences of the model
are measured.
Some recommendations
o The recommendation from the authors is to rebalance the selection process
between theory and method. People’s natural inclination is to require greater
proof of a new or provocative idea than one they already believe to be true.
Therefore, if a theory is particularly interesting, the standards used to
evaluate how well it is tested or grounded need to be relaxed, not
strengthened. We need to recognize that major contributions can be
made when data are more illustrative than definitive.
Conclusion
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller mathijsvdweert. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.26. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78998 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now