What Theory is not, Theorizing is

Products of the theorizing process seldom emerge as full-blown theories. Some are weak
because of laziness, some are weak because the authors are still inching to something more
forceful. Ruling out the "not theory" things like diagrams, lists, make sense if people are
being lazy but not if they are struggling with difficult issues.

Theory is not something one "adds" to data, or something that one transforms from weaker to
stronger by means of graphics or references, or can be feigned by flashy conceptual
performance. But the five "not theory" pieces often do embed some theory, and there are
graduations of each factor.

Most theories are approximate theories. Merton says they take four forms:

* General orientations

* Analysis of concepts

* Post-fact interpretation from a single observation

* Empirical generalization

While they are not full theories, they can serve as means to further development.

Like Sutton and Shaw say, it is hard in this low-paradigm field to spot which efforts are
theory are which are not. Theory can take a variety of forms and is a continuum.

One can also go directly from data to prescription without a theory, as doctors go from
symptoms to treatment without a diagnosis sometimes. Data, lists, diagrams are not theory
but can help point to and elaborate theories.

Ultimately, the question becomes do you publish "ends" or also "interim struggles". The
ongoing activities often create the lists, diagrams, etc. that eventually can become real theory.
"Those emergent products summarize progress, give direction, and serve as milestones.
 What theory is not

Authors routinely use references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses in lieu of good
theory. Journals should be more receptive to papers that thest part than all of a theory and use
illustrative than definitive data. There is lack of agreement whether a model and a theory can
be distinguished, whether a typology is a theory, and the value of "interestingness" on theory,
and whether falsifiability is a pre-requisite. Scholars are forced to make tradeoffs between
generality, simplicity, and accuracy.

Parts of an Article that are not theory are:

1. References are not theory

Lots of references to existing theories does not create a new theory. Sometimes references are
a smoke screen or are "throw-away" references. Authors need to explain which concepts and
arguments are adopted from cited sources and how they are linked to the developed theory.

2. Data are not theory

Data describe which empirical patterns were observed and theory explains why empirical
patterns were observed. Data provides support but does not constitute a theory. Those who
use qualitative data must develop causal arguments to explain why findings are observed if
they want to include theory.

3. Lists of Variables or Constructs are Not Theory

Theory is not conceptual definitions. Lists of variables that cover all possible determinants
help explain but is not theory by themselves. Comparative tests of variables is not a
comparative test of theory. They key issue is again WHY certain variables are more
important.

4. Diagrams are Not Theory

Diagrams can help explain how a phenomenon is created, but they again don't explain why.
Good theory is often representational and verbal. With a strong theory one can discern when
a major hypothesis is most or least likely to hold.
5. Hypothesis (or predictions) are not theory

A theoretical model is not simply a statement of hypotheses. Hypotheses are statements about
what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur. Predictions without logic are not
theory. Strong theory papers have both simplicity and connectedness.

Identifying Strong Theory

Theory answers why. It's about connections among phenomenon. It delves into underlying
processes. It is laced with t set of convincing and logically interconnected arguments. Weick
says a good theory explains, predicts, and delights.

The Case against Theory

Van Maanen believes there is too much mediocre theory and there should be a 10 year
moratorium while we understand organizations better through observation. Others think we
should focus more on accumulating empirical findings for meta-analysis.

Most researchers are trained in experimentation, not in theory building. It's difficult to
successfully do both and still get published. Often theory is crafted around the data. Thus the
craft of manuscript writing becomes an art of fitting concepts and arguments around what has
been measured and discovered.

Right now it's easier to agree around a strong empirical paper with no theory than one with a
weak test of a new theoretical idea. Unfortunately, papers chosen for revision seem to be
those with acceptable methods and undeveloped theory. The author's recommendation is to
rebalance the selection process between theory and method. Journals should publish papers
that are stronger in theory than method. It's sort of been happening for qualitative research
but not quantitative research. Seldom are ethnographic descriptions published when they are
not also a source of new concepts or ideas. In qualitative studies often theory is emphasized
too much.
Organizational theories some criteria for evaluation

The objective of this article is to establish some criteria for the construction and evaluation of
organization and management theories. A theory is not a description. A theory is different
from categorization of data, typologies, and metaphors. A theory should be applied within a
boundary or assumptions about values, time, and space to avoid conflicted theoretical
interpretation of different theorists. Within this boundary, variables (observable or concrete
entities which is capable of assuming two or more values) and hypotheses (relationship
among variables); or constructs (a broad abstract configuration of a given phenomenon) and
propositions (relationship among propositions), should be defined. Two primary criteria in
evaluation of any theory are falsifiability and utility. Falsifiability determines whether a
theory is constructed such that empirical refutation is possible. Utility refers to the usefulness
of theoretical systems.

The idea to evaluate an organizational theory presented in this article is contradict to the
article “Learning the Craft of Organizational Research” by Daft (1983). Daft (1983) suggests
seven elements to form an alternative framework of research method that differs from
traditional research which primarily puts an attention on quantitative or qualitative research
methods. One proposed element is that common sense should not be ignored simply because
there is no concrete proof of it. To use a common sense, metaphor or analogy is employed to
provide a linkage between new ideas and previous experience. Contrarily, Bacharach (1989)
argues that a theory should be evaluated from propositions and hypotheses rather than
metaphors. However, another thought suggesting a boundary or assumptions of value, time,
and space in order to construct an organizational theory is similar to Poole and Van De Ven’
(1989) article of “Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories,” which
argues that time should be taken into a consideration during the evaluation of a theory
paradox.