Samenvatting
Organization Development Book Summary
- Instelling
- Tilburg University (UVT)
Entire summary of the chapters required for the course Organization Development (441079) at Tilburg University
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 77 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 77 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Verkoper
VolgenVoorbeeld van de inhoud
SAMENVATTING OT ALLE PAPERSWhat is organization theory?:
- Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical constribution?
- Sutton, R.I., and B.M. Staw (1995). What Theory is Not.
- Mayer, K.J. and R.T. Sparrowe (2013). Integrating Theories in AMJ Articles.
Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical constribution?
This paper is about the theory development process. The article is organized around three key questions: (a)
What are the building blocks of theory development? (b) What is a legitimate value-added contribution to theory
development? and (c) What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
a. What are the Building Blocks of Theory Development
A complete theory contain four essential elements. What, how and why.
What Which factors (variables, constructs, concepts) logically should be considered as part of the explanation
of the social or individual phenomena of interest? Two criteria are important for including the right factors.
Comprehensiveness: are all relevant factors included?, and Parsimony: should some factors be deleted
because they add little additional value to our under- standing?
Sensitivity to the competing virtues of parsimony and comprehensiveness is the hallmark of a good theorist.
How Having identified a set of factors, the researcher's next question is, How are they related? Operationally
this involves using "arrows" to connect the "boxes." Such a step adds order to the conceptualization by explicitly
delineating patterns. In addition, it typically introduces causality. Although the researcher may be unable to
adequately test these links, restrictions in methods do not invalidate the inherent causal nature of theory.
What and how together constitute the domain or subject of the theory. The more complex the set of relationships
under consideration, the more useful it is to graphically depict them. They describe
Why What are the underlying psychological, economic, or social dynamics that justify the se- lection of
factors and the proposed causal relationships? This rationale constitutes the theory's assumptions the theoretical
glue that welds the model together. It explains
During the theory-development process, theorists want to prove their propositions. Through the verification of all
the links there will be in within one theory a model makes sense and can be used. Authors want to push the
boundaries of our knowledge by compelling logical and logical justifications for altered views. To explain the
Whys underlying that reconstituted the Whats and Hows.
There is an implications for the link between theory development and empirical research. Whats and Hows
produce a model that shows which testable propositions can be derived. These statements can be tested without
explaining the Whys. But this will be more empirical instead of theoretical. This will lead too discussions and
insufficient understandings. So it is very important to also explain the Whys to avoid discussions and
misunderstandings.
What and How describe; only Why explains. What and How provide a framework for interpreting patterns, or
discrepancies, in our empirical observations. This is an important distinction because data, whether qualitative or
quantitative, characterize; theory supplies the explanation for the characteristics. Therefore, we must make sure
that what is passing as good theory includes a plausible, cogent explanation for why we should expect certain
relationships in our data. Together these three elements provide the essential ingredients of a simple theory:
description and explanation.
If propositions are used, they should be limited to specifying the logically deduced implications for research of a
theoretical argument. This brings us Who, Where, When. These conditions place limitations on the propositions
1
,generated from a theoretical model. These factors set boundaries of generalization and constitute the range of
the theory.
Although it is important for theorists to be sensitive to context, the Who, Where, and When of a theory are
typically discovered through sub- sequent tests of the initial, rudimentary theoretical statement (What, How, Why).
In the process of testing these 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.
b. What Is a Legitimate, Value-Added Contribution to Theory Development?
Most organizational scholars are not going to generate a new theory from scratch. Instead, they generally work
on improving what already exists. But when there is enough contribution to a theory to publish it?
What and How By adding or subtracting factor (Whats) from an existing model, this will seldom satisfies
reviewers. To demonstrate the value of a proposed change is to identify how this change affects accepted
relationships between variables (Hows). It is about the relationships between variables and not the list of
variables. As Poincare (1983) so aptly noted, "Science is facts, just as houses are made of stone.... But a pile of
stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Important changes in a theory's What and How are frequently stimulated by surprising research results.
Why This is probably the most fruitful, but also the most difficult avenue of theory development. It involves
borrowing a perspective from other fields, and so try to challenge the underlying rationales supporting accepted
theories. This is a critical stage in theory development. Theories sometimes challenged because they seem
unrealistic.
Who, When, Where Theorists need to understand why this anomaly exists, so that they can revise the How
and What of the model to accommodate this new information. It is preferable to investigate qualitative changes in
the boundaries of a theory (applications under qualitatively different conditions), rather than mere quantitative
expansions. 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. That is, new applications should improve the tool, not merely reaffirm its utility.
Three broad themes underlie this section; First, proposed improvements addressing only a single
element of an existing theory are seldom judged to be sufficient. Therefore, a general rule of thumb is that
critiques should focus on multiple elements of the theory. This approach adds the qualities of completeness and
thoroughness to theoretical work.
Second, theoretical critiques should marshal compelling evidence. This evidence can be logical (e.g., the
theory is not internally consistent), empirical (its predictions are inconsistent with the data accumulated from
several studies), or epistemological (its assumptions are invalid- given information from another field).
Third, in general, theoretical critiques should propose remedies or alternatives. Although we can think of
classic critiques in the history of science that stood on their own merits, the typical debate in our field is less clear
cut. Consequently, critics should share responsibility for crafting improved conceptualizations. Other- wise, it is
difficult to know whether the original is indeed inferior, or simply the best we can do in a very complex world.
c. What Factors Are Considered in Judging Conceptual Papers?
There are seven questions that summarizes the concerns raised by our reviewers. The reviewers consider other
factors to be important, as expressions, impact etc. The seven questions together a constitute summary answer
to the broad question; What constitutes a publishable theory paper?
1. What’s new?
Does the paper make a significant, value-added contribution to current thinking? Not necessarily new
theories but also modifications or extensions are possible. Changes can be calibrated in terms of scope
and degree. Scope tends to reflect the level of theorizing (general versus middle level), while degree
reflects the radicalness of the proposal. Degree more important
2. So what?
Will the theory likely change the practice of organizational science in this area? Are linkages to research
evident? Etc. These questions are less appropriate for the rare, highly conceptual papers aimed at
changing the way organizational scholars think, in general. However, the purpose of the standard
2
, theoretical paper should be to alter research practice, not simply to tweak a conceptual model in ways
that are of little consequence.
3. Why so?
Are the underlying logic and sup- porting evidence compelling? Theory development papers should be
built on a foundation of convincing argumentation and grounded in reasonable, explicit views of human
nature and organizational practice.
4. Well done?
Does the paper reflect seasoned thinking, conveying completeness and thoroughness? Are multiple
theoretical elements (What, How, Why, When-Where-Who) covered, giving the paper a conceptually
well- rounded, rather than a superficial, quality? Etc.
5. Done well?
Is the paper well written? Does it flow logically? Etc.
6. Why now?
Is this topic of contemporary interest to scholars in this area? Will it likely advance current discussions,
stimulate new discussions, or revitalize old discussions? Etc. Reviewers give low marks to papers they
perceive are redundant, unconnected, or antiquated.
7. Who cares?
What percentage of academic readers are interested in this topic? A paper may be technically adequate
but inherently uninteresting to most of our broad audience. Papers written on topics with narrow appeal
are typically held to a higher standard for Criteria 1 and 2; that is, they are expected to make a more
significant contribution to current thinking and research practice. In general, even highly specialized
papers should be linked to core management or organizational concepts and problems. Otherwise, they
are more appropriate for a discipline-based journal.
In conclusion, the theory-development process and criteria for judging theoretical contributions need to
be broadly understood and accepted so that editors and contributors can communicate effectively.
Hopefully this brief article will facilitate that process. I urge readers to assist in the further development of
frameworks for describing and enhancing these important scholarly activities. Papers on the process of
building new and improving current theories are always welcome.
3
, Sutton, R.I., and B.M. Staw (1995). What Theory is Not
This paper describes the differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is
some agreement about what a strong or a weak theory is, but there is more consensus that references, data,
variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory. These five elements will be explained why they are not a
theory and how to avoid such confusion. The goal of the paper is to help authors avoid some of the most common
and easily averted problems that lead readers to view papers as having inadequate theory.
Some authors decide not to publish a submitted paper because it contains an inadequate theory. There
are common reason why papers have a weak theory. Some authors read diverse literature that seeks to define
theory and distinguish weak from strong theory. But this can leave the reader more confused about how to write a
paper that contains strong theory. Because of the lack of consensus on exactly what theory is, it is very difficult to
develop a strong theory. Even when an author has a well-defined and strong theory, it could be rejected through
the particular taste of editors or reviewers. Also the process of building theory is full of internal conflicts and
contradictions Authors are forced to make tradeoffs between generality, simplicity and accuracy and are
challenged by having to write logically consistent arguments. Writing a strong theory is time consuming and
because of the many errors there are in these theories there is a high rejection rate by organizational research
journals.
Parts of an article that are not theory
1. References
Authors need to acknowledge the stream of logic on which there are drawing and to with they are
contributing. . But listing references to existing theories and mentioning the names of such theories is not the
same as explicating the causal logic they contain. on bill collectors contains three references but no theory: "This
pattern is consistent with findings that aggression provokes the 'fight' response (Frijda, 1986) and that anger is a
contagious emotion (Schacter and Singer, 1962; Baron, 1977)." This sentence lists publications that contain
conceptual arguments (and some findings). But there is no theory because no logic is presented to explain why
aggression provokes "fight" or why anger is contagious.
Reviewers and editors call for more theories, this leads to flurry citations. No more detailed arguments but
names of theories without an explanation why this leads to an new or unanswered theoretical question.
Also references are like a smoke screen to hide absence of a theory. An author uses a string of references to
hide the fact that he really did not understand the theory in question. A book that people praise but do not
read.
Authors need to explicate which concepts and causal arguments are adopted from cited sources and how
they are linked to the theory being developed or tested. This suggestion does not mean that a paper needs to
review every nuance of every theory cited. Rather, it means that enough of the pertinent logic from past
theoretical work should be included so that the reader can grasp the author's logical arguments
2. Data
Observed patterns like weights, statements etc. by informants rarely constitute causal explanations. A theory
is based on data but the data itself does not consist the explanations of a theory. Data explains which patterns
were observed and theory explains why patterns were observed.
Through a quickly move form empirical findings from the past to a discussion of the current results, the
theoretical foundation is not there. By using series of findings, instead of a couple of findings with a logical
reasoning to justify a hypothesis. Findings itself cannot motivate a hypothesis and reporting of results cannot
substitute for causal reasoning.
Quantitative data: Others had reported certain findings, and so similar patterns would be expected from the
data This is an example of brute empiricism, where hypotheses are motivated by prior data rather than theory
Qualitative data: Develop causal arguments to explain why persistent findings have been observed if they
wish to write papers that contain theory
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper siobhanyoung. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 77254 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen