Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 186 views

    Review of "What Theory Is Not"

    Uploaded by

    Sastry Sarath Pendyala
    This is a review of the journal article by Sutton & Staw (1995) published in Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Review of "What Theory Is Not"

    Uploaded by

    Sastry Sarath Pendyala
    186 views7 pages
    This is a review of the journal article by Sutton & Staw (1995) published in Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Original Title

    Review of "What Theory is Not"

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This is a review of the journal article by Sutton & Staw (1995) published in Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    186 views7 pages

    Review of "What Theory Is Not"

    Uploaded by

    Sastry Sarath Pendyala
    This is a review of the journal article by Sutton & Staw (1995) published in Administrative Science Quarterly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995).

    What theory is
    not. Administrative science quarterly, 371-384.
    Sarath Pendyala
    Introduction

    • The literature on theory building can leave a reader more rather than less confused
    about how to write a paper that contains strong theory (Freese, 1980)
    • Lack of consensus on exactly what theory is may explain why it is so difficult to
    develop strong theory in the behavioral sciences
    • Though there is conflict about what theory is and should be, there is more
    consensus about what theory is not
    • The authors list five features of a scholarly article that do not constitute theory
    Parts of An Article that are Not Theory

    • References: Listing references to existing theories and mentioning the


    names of such theories is not the same as explicating the causal logic they
    contain
    • Data: observed patterns like beta weights, factor loadings, or consistent
    statements by informants 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
    Contd.

    • Lists of Variables or Constructs: List of variables and definitions of these variables


    are important parts of theory but do not, alone, constitute theory – A theory must
    also explain why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected
    • Diagrams: Diagrams or figures can be a valuable part of a research paper but also,
    by themselves, rarely constitute theory
    • Hypotheses (or Predictions): Hypotheses serve as crucial bridges between theory
    and data but as Dubin (1976: 26) noted, “ A theoretical model is simply not a
    statement of hypotheses”
    Identifying Strong Theory

    • Scholars like Kaplan (1964) and Merton (1967) assert that theory is the answer to
    queries of why
    • Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts,
    events, structure, and thoughts occur
    • Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first
    as well as the timing of such events
    • Strong theory delves into underlying processes so as to understand the systematic
    reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence
    The Case Against Theory

    • John Van Maanen (1989), for example, has stressed that the field first needs more
    descriptive narratives about organizational life, presumably based on intensive
    ethnographic work – he called for a 10-year moratorium on theoretical papers
    • Some evaluation researchers have noted that it is more important to isolate a few
    successful change efforts than it is to understand the causal nuances underlying any
    particular outcome
    • Advocates of meta-analysis view the mission of social science to be an accumulation of
    empirical findings rather than an ebb and flow of theoretical paradigms (Kuhn, 1970)
    • Some publications use this view – others view theory development as its primary
    contribution
    Conclusion

    • The problem with theory building may also be structural – on one hand, editors and
    reviewers plead for creative and interesting ideas but on the other hand, authors
    are skewered for apparent mismatches between their theory and data
    • When theories are particularly interesting or important, there should be greater
    leeway in terms of empirical support
    • A small set of interviews, a demonstration experiment, a pilot survey, a bit of
    archival data may be all that is needed to show why a particular process might be
    true

    You might also like