Ruminations about making a theoretical contribution

TLDR: Rather than coalesce on a definition of theory, it is likely more beneficial to highlight the contributions of prominent theorists in an effort to provide the characteristics of good theory and the process of building good theory.

Abstract: A Google web search (2011) offered the following definitions of theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject. Further exploration within these definitions offered elaborations as to what constitutes a “scientific” theory: A theory that explains scientific observations; “scientific theories must be falsifiable” An explanation or idea accepted by a substantial number of scientists A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena A scientific theory is an explanation or model used to account for observations or experimental results characterizing an observed phenomenon. Within the management/business discipline, illustrative definitions of theory abound. For example, theory has been viewed as “An ordered set of assertions about a generic behavior or structure assumed to hold throughout a significantly broad range of specific instances” (Sutherland 1975, p. 9) “A systematically related set of statements, including some lawlike generalizations, that is empirically testable” (Rudner 1966, p. 10) “A statement of relationships between units observed or approximated in the empirical world” (Bacharach 1989, p. 498) “A collection of assertions, both verbal and symbolic, that identifies what variables are important and for what reasons, specifies how they are interrelated and why, and identifies the conditions under which they should be related or not related” (Campbell 1990, p. 65) Hambrick (2007, p. 1346) posited that “theories help us organize our thoughts, generate coherent explanations, and improve our predictions.” Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007, p. 1281) provided summary statements from a wide variety of researchers: “Theory allows scientists to understand and predict outcomes of interest, even if only probabilistically,” “Theory also allows scientists to describe and explain a process or sequence of events,” “Theory prevents scholars from being dazzled by the complexity of the empirical world by providing a linguistic tool for organizing it,” “Theory acts as an educational device that can raise consciousness about a specific set of concepts,” and “Theory is the basic aim of science.” Yet, while the definitions appear straightforward and essentially say the same thing using different words and the importance of theory is inarguable, researchers continue to remain confused as to how to create and communicate a strong theory contribution (Freese 1980). For example, according to Sutton and Staw (1995, p. 371), “There is lack of agreement about whether a model and a theory can be distinguished, whether a typology is properly labeled a theory or not, whether the strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is, and whether falsifiability is a prerequisite for the very existence of theory.” Thus, rather than coalesce on a definition of theory, it is likely more beneficial to highlight the contributions of prominent theorists in an effort to provide the characteristics of good theory and the process of building good theory. The Academy of Management Review published several articles in 1989 that focused on criteria and methods for building good theory. We will draw from these and other articles in an effort to summarize what has been offered over time in terms of theoretical development.