Defining and operationalizing theory

• Date: 01 November 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2121
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Author: Jose M. Cortina

Defining and operationalizing theory

JOSE M. CORTINA*

Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 22030, U.S.A.

Summary Over the last 50 years, the organizational sciences have gone from being largely atheoretical to relying heavily

on theory. For various reasons, our approach to theory building has strayed from the principles of scientific

acceptability. In this paper, I explore the problems with our approach to theory, the systemic causes of these

problems, and the changes that are needed to get us back on track. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: theory; philosophyof science; HARKing

What is theory? Nightingale (2006) attributes the term, theoria, to Plato as a means to describe spectators (rather than par-

ticipants) at plays, Olympic Games, and so on. The theoria sought to observe and understand, rather than engage. www.

Merriam-Webster.com gives several definitions of theory, classifying them into “simple”and “full”definitions. One of the

“simple”definitions is, “an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true”.

One of the “full”definitions is “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to

explain phenomena”. The simple definition is, I think, the definition most often used by the layperson. There are facts,

and then there are things that are merely true in theory. To refer to something as a theory is to engage in deroga tion.

Those of us who call ourselves scientists think of theory in very different terms. The principles that constitute a

theory must indeed be scientifically acceptable, and they must explain phenomena. Most of us could agree on the

elements of scientific acceptability. Whetten (1989) explained that a good theory offers the What, How, and Why

(i.e., the variables, how they are connected, and why they are thus connected) of a phenomenon as well as the

Who, When, and Where (i.e., moderators). He and others also mention other components of theory, such as testabil-

ity and revision. Thus, a theory is a set of clearly identified variables and their connections, the reasons for those

connections, and the primary boundary conditions for those connections. The connections are testable and can be

trimmed away if evidence suggests that their contribution to the understanding of a phenomenon is outweighed

by the need for parsimony. This seems consistent with other meta-theoretical writings in the social and organiza-

tional sciences (e.g., Dubin, 1978; Freese, 1980; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Kaplan, 1964) and is entirely consistent with

Ferris, Hochwarter, and Buckley’s (2011) distillation of definitions of theory into, “a systematic explanatory state-

ment about the relationships among a set of constructs, with accompanying logic and assumptions”(p. 96).

The central thesis of the present paper is that our field has strayed from scientific acceptability as it relates to the-

orizing. I first describe some of the evidence that problems exist as well as the systemic flaws of which the problems

are a result. I then offer some strategies that might allow us to return to scientific acceptability. Finally, I examine

some of the rules —some spoken, some not —that represent obstacles to improvement

Where We are versus Where We are Supposed to be

I am not the first to suggest that our approach to theorizing has drifted away from scientific acceptability. It

seems, however, that concern over this issue is growing. McKinley (2010); Corley and Gioia (2011); Ferris

et al. (2011), and Pillutla and Thau (2013) have all suggested that our approach to theory has become perverted

*Correspondence to: Jose M. Cortina Department of Psychology, George Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia 22030, U.S.A. E-mail: jcortina@gmu.edu

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 30 May 2016, Accepted 04 June 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1142–1149 (2016)

Published online 13 July 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2121

Point-Counterpoint