Why we need theory in the organization sciences

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2113
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Author: Neal M. Ashkanasy
• Date: 01 November 2016

Why we need theory in the organization sciences

NEAL M. ASHKANASY*

UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Summary To make the case that theory is a necessary part of research in the organization sciences, I develop three lines

of argument. In the first, drawing upon Staw and Sutton’s (1995, “What theory is not”Administrative Science

Quarterly,40, 371–384) classic piece, I outline the boundaries of theory and, using a recently published

empirical article as an example, demonstrate how research based on literature references and line-and-box

diagrams instead of explanatory theory can make only a limited contribution to the literature. I next discuss

more generally the pitfalls of conducting research without first developing theory, citing the example of

malaria. In the final section of the article, I defend the role of theory-review articles, such as those published

in the Academy of Management Review, and illustrate (again by reference to an example) how such articles

are critical to advancing organizational research. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: theory; science; empirical fallacy

Huffman and Dowdell (2015) define theory as “a systematic, interrelated set of concepts that explain a body of data”

(p. 21). In this point–counterpoint article, I argue that research in the organization sciences cannot advance without

being based in the first instance on an “interrelated set of concepts”used in turn to explain the nature of phenomena

and the relationships between them. To make this case, I will proceed in three sections. In the first, based on Sutton

and Staw’s (1995) classic article, “What theory is not,”I outline the boundaries of theory and use an example to

illustrate the consequences of insufficiently developed theory. In the next section, I discuss in more detail what

the world would be like in the absence of theory, making the point that credible research cannot proceed without

reference to theory. In the final section, I discuss the contribution of theory articles in the organization sciences with

particular reference to the Academy of Management Review and argue that theory articles are critical to the advance-

ment of scholarly knowledge in our field.

What Theory Is, and What It Is Not

It has been 20 years since Sutton and Staw (1995) outlined the boundaries of what constitutes theory in the

organization sciences. In effect, Sutton and Staw provide an obverse definition of theory by outlining a set of five

characteristics of “What theory is not.”

1. Theory is not a set of literature references. Sutton and Staw (1995) point out in particular that while references to

past literature can be used to set the background to a theoretical position, they cannot be used like a “a smoke

screen to hide the absence of theory”(p. 373). In this regard, literature may be used to develop theory—a chain

of logically linked propositions leading to a conclusion—but do not substitute for theory.

2. Theory is not a set of data. Sutton and Staw (1995, p.373) point out that, “Empirical evidence plays an important

role in confirming, revising, or discrediting existing theory and in guiding the development of new theory”but,

like references to the literature (in effect, other people’s data), they do not substitute for theory.

*Correspondence to: Neal M. Ashkanasy, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. E-mail: n.

ashkanasy@uq.edu.au

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 26 May 2016, Accepted 30 May 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 1126–1131 (2016)

Published online 13 July 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2113

Point-Counterpoint