Academy of Management Review

“WHAT I KNOW NOW THAT I WISH I KNEW THEN”:

TEACHING THEORY AND THEORY-BUILDING

Journal: Academy of Management Review

Manuscript ID: AMR-2015-0094-FTE

Manuscript Type: From the Editor (AMR Editors Only)

Keywords: Abilities (Individual), Absenteeism, Adaptation/Change

Page 1 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
EDITORS’ COMMENTS:
4
5
6 “WHAT I KNOW NOW THAT I WISH I KNEW THEN”: TEACHING THEORY AND
7
8 THEORY-BUILDING
9
10
11
Many daunting challenges face doctoral students and junior faculty (and perhaps even
12
13 more senior faculty) in management. In our own experience, one of the more daunting challenges
14
15 we face is in understanding theory and theory-building. We both can reflect on moments when
16
17
18 we were truly befuddled by questions related to these topics. As one of the experts we turned to
19
20 for insights in writing this article pointed out, it is paradoxical that doctoral students are often
21
22 asked to write theory early in their training. Such experiences may end up leaving students
23
24
25 frustrated and perhaps even more confused than they started!
26
27 We decided that providing some guidance on how to teach theory and theory-building
28
29
might be useful. More specifically, our aims are two-fold. First, we aim to summarize what
30
31
32 information about using and building theory should be included in an instructional (or even self-
33
34 taught) course on these topics. Second, we aim to present some of the readings and instructional
35
36
37 methods used to teach these topics.
38
39 In doing so, we hope to be helpful to several different constituents. For those involved in
40
41 designing doctoral student curriculum, we hope that we can provide some concrete ideas about
42
43
44 what might be included in a course on theory and theory-building. For doctoral students in
45
46 programs that cannot offer such a course, we hope that this piece provides some guidance about
47
48 how to further your education on these topics with either a faculty mentor, alone, or with other
49
50
51 students. Lastly, for those whose doctoral education is in the rearview mirror, we hope that we
52
53 can offer some suggestions that you can use to further your professional development. In fact, we
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
 Academy of Management Review Page 2 of 21

1
2
3
learned a lot in putting together the information for this article – and we hope that you can learn
4
5
6 from it, too.1
7
8 We should also be clear about what we are not trying to accomplish here. This article is
9
10
11
not meant to teach you all there is to know about theory and theory-building – that is far beyond
12
13 the scope of a short article such as this. Rather we will provide direction to you about what
14
15 knowledge you should seek to acquire and suggest readings and activities meant to assist in the
16
17
18 acquisition of knowledge related to theory and theory-building. We are also not aiming to
19
20 identify what specific theories should or should not be taught in a course or professional
21
22 development endeavor related to organizational theory. Rather we are squarely focused on the
23
24
25 activity of how to teach and learn about theory and theory-building. With this focus in mind, we
26
27 sought to find out what those we consider experts in management theory and theory-building say
28
29
and do.
30
31
32 FINDING OUT WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY AND DO
33
34 In an effort to discover how management faculty teach and transmit their understanding
35
36
37 of theory and theory-building, we undertook a two-part investigation. First, using our
38
39 connections to leading scholars in the area of theory development, we conducted a search of
40
41 syllabi used in PhD classes in management programs. Finding relevant syllabi was actually more
42
43
44 difficult than we thought as few doctoral programs offer a course that focuses specifically on
45
46 theory development. More commonly, professors offer a course on a specific topic (e.g., groups
47
48 and group processes) and teach aspects of theory and development in the context of the specific
49
50
51 topic. Hence, we quickly realized that we would need to read through each of the syllabi that we
52
53
54
55
56 1
57 From this point forward, we use the term “students” to denote anyone at any stage in their academic
58 career who wants to learn more about theory and theory-building.
59
60 2
Page 3 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
accessed to determine the facets of the pedagogical approach that were applicable to transmitting
4
5
6 theory recognition, theory application, and theory development.
7
8 The second part of the investigation involved interviewing researchers who have been
9
10
11
successful in publishing theory, both in Academy of Management Review and in other outlets. To
12
13 that end, we interviewed seven individuals who come from different fields of management
14
15 including strategic management, organizational theory, human resources, and organizational
16
17
18 behavior. We asked these individuals for their views and responses to a series of questions such
19
20 as “What do you know now about theory (or theory-building) that you wish you had been taught
21
22 as a doctoral student?”, “In your experience and in regard to theory (or theory-building), what do
23
24
25 students particularly struggle with?”, and “Are there certain readings that are particularly helpful
26
27 to you when teaching theory?” Below we summarize what we learned from these investigations.
28
29
WHAT WE LEARNED
30
31
32 Recall that one of our aims was to try to make sense of the information that should be
33
34 learned and communicated about theory and theory-building. Fortunately, we found a
35
36
37 tremendous amount of convergence about the learning objectives for new students of
38
39 management theory and theory-building. Specifically, these learning objectives are phrased
40
41 below in terms of five broad questions: (1) What is (and isn’t) theory? (2) Should we care about
42
43
44 theory? (3) Where do new theories come from? (4) How do you build a good theory? and (5)
45
46 How do you get your theory published?
47
48 In the next section, we list suggested readings and activities that provide answers to these
49
50
51 questions. The suggested readings can be used to guide the reading list for a doctoral seminar
52
53 that is wholly or partially devoted to theory and theory-building. Alternately, these readings can
54
55
56
be used to guide your own reading at any stage in your career. We also present suggested
57
58
59
60 3
 Academy of Management Review Page 4 of 21

1
2
3
learning activities that can be used as an assigned activity in a course, as a less structured activity
4
5
6 perhaps in the context of a student-faculty mentoring relationship, or as a self-guided learning
7
8 activity to be used alone or with peers.
9
10
11
HOW TO LEARN ABOUT THEORY AND THEORY-BUILDING
12
13 All of our experts stated that reading is a “must” for those wanting to learn more about
14
15 theory and theory-building. We are fortunate in the management field that so much has been
16
17
18 written about these topics. However, these readings should not be approached passively. One
19
20 expert suggested that having students read these articles “confuses the hell out of them” and
21
22 forces them to struggle with figuring it out. For each of the five questions associated with our
23
24
25 learning objectives we provide some exemplar readings; a more complete reading list is provided
26
27 in the Appendix. This list can also be found on the Academy of Management Review website
28
29
under “Teaching Resources.” Consistent with our experts’ advice, we hope that they are
30
31
32 approached actively – with an open and inquisitive mind.
33
34 From the information gleaned from the syllabi and our interviews, learning about theory
35
36
37 and theory-building occurs through both structured and unstructured learning approaches. In
38
39 terms of structured approaches, some doctoral programs offer a course or part of a course on
40
41 these topics. However, our experts generally acknowledged that developing theory and theory-
42
43
44 building skills occurs in unstructured settings as well, such as in mentoring collaborations and
45
46 professional development workshops (e.g., the Academy of Management’s professional
47
48 development workshop on theory-writing). Most of the experts we interviewed engaged in some
49
50
51 combination of structured and unstructured approaches when transmitting knowledge associated
52
53 with theory; we believe that this dual approach is probably the most effective.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 4
Page 5 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
Guided by the learning objectives we described earlier, we identified several activities
4
5
6 that answered our questions around theory development. In addition to reading about theory and
7
8 reading about topics that have a theoretical component, all of our experts believe that the most
9
10
11
important learnings come from writing and communicating a theory-based idea. As one expert
12
13 paraphrased, “We don’t know what we think until we know what we write” (Forster, 1927).
14
15 Hence, when engaging in theory creation and building, it is important to write, present, critique,
16
17
18 and solicit feedback on one’s ideas. For this reason, we provide here some of the more
19
20 potentially useful activities that help students answer questions around theory and theory-
21
22 building.
23
24
25 What is (and isn’t) theory? The first set of questions concerns what theory is and what
26
27 it isn’t. We see these questions as important building blocks because they help to define theory.
28
29
The question, “What is theory?” refers to issues of the characteristics of a good theory (such as
30
31
32 being interesting and relevant) and how authors can make a theoretical contribution (e.g.,
33
34 Bacharach, 1989; Davis, 1971). It also refers to the building blocks of theory. For example,
35
36
37 Whetten (1989) articulates theory as containing four essential elements: What and How
38
39 (description), Why (explanation), and Who, Where, When (boundary conditions). The other part
40
41 of the question, “What is not theory?” refers to common misconceptions about what theory is
42
43
44 (e.g., Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1995).
45
46 To help students understand what theory is and isn’t, our experts suggested forcing
47
48 students to identify theories used in papers describing a particular phenomenon (e.g., the
49
50
51 relationship between personality attributes and entrepreneurial behaviors). Examples of focused
52
53 questions using this approach are “What is the overarching theoretical framework?,” “What are
54
55
56
the differences between process and variance theories?,” “How does this paper amend existing
57
58
59
60 5
 Academy of Management Review Page 6 of 21

1
2
3
theory?,” “What is the mechanism that links the constructs in this paper?,” What are the
4
5
6 strengths and weakness of the theory?,” and “What (if anything) do you disagree with or find
7
8 controversial?” Asking focused questions ensures that students pay attention to the theory that
9
10
11
underlies the phenomenon, framework, or set of relationships that they are reading about.
12
13 Relatedly, students should be encouraged to identify the boundary conditions and assumptions
14
15 that underlie any theoretical approach – going beyond those that the authors of the theory have
16
17
18 identified. All theories have a set of assumptions that underlie them and boundary conditions that
19
20 contain them, and it useful to explicitly consider what those assumptions and boundary
21
22 conditions might be.
23
24
25 Another set of activities aimed at helping students learn what theory is (and isn’t) is to
26
27 ask them to generate one or two testable propositions that can be deduced from a specific theory.
28
29
Because many of our experts noted the benefit of representing theories visually, students could
30
31
32 present visual models implied by the propositions using boxes and arrows, where appropriate.
33
34 Going further, students could be asked to generate ways that these propositions could be tested.
35
36
37 This set of activities is mainly geared towards the development of variance theories that
38
39 presuppose a neo-positivistic conception of theory.
40
41 Should we care about theory? A second important question to address is, “Should we
42
43
44 care about theory?” Answering this question explains the role of theory in management research.
45
46 For example, it explores how theory helps guide the research questions we ask and gives sense to
47
48 our findings (e.g., Van de Ven, 1989). On the other hand, answering this question provides some
49
50
51 insights into how an overemphasis on theory can constrain the accumulation of knowledge in
52
53 management (e.g., Hambrick, 2007).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 6
Page 7 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
To help clarify why theory is important, students can be asked to identify different
4
5
6 theoretical perspectives that address a research problem or area in which they are interested.
7
8 After formally stating their research question, they should attempt to come up with a fairly
9
10
11
exhaustive list of the different theoretical perspectives that might be used to answer this question
12
13 and discuss the implications of each perspective as well as identify the limits of their list.
14
15 Another activity is to have a student pick a formal statement of a theory and analyze how good a
16
17
18 theory it really is. In doing these types of activities, students should begin to understand that
19
20 theories are the mechanisms that help us explain why some part of the world works the way that
21
22 it does.
23
24
25 To further clarify why theory is important, it is useful to consider why so many
26
27 institutions value theory. Thus, another activity is to have students answer the question: “Why do
28
29
major research universities promote the development of theories by their faculty -- rather than
30
31
32 just asking faculty to rely on existing theory or work on solving problems related to existing
33
34 theory?”
35
36
37 Where do new theories come from? Answering the question, “Where do new theories
38
39 come from?” involves an exploration of the different places from which theories are derived and
40
41 the ways in which theories come to be. For example, new management theories can be derived
42
43
44 from case studies and other inductive methods (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989). Imaginary experiments
45
46 (i.e., disciplined imagination: Weick, 1989) and thought experiments (Cornelissen & Durand,
47
48 2014; Folger & Turillo, 1999) have been lauded as approaches for developing theory. Others
49
50
51 have suggested borrowing theories from other disciplines such as economics and psychology,
52
53 while recognizing that there are limitations in doing so (e.g., Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011;
54
55
56
Whetten, Felin, & King, 2009).
57
58
59
60 7
 Academy of Management Review Page 8 of 21

1
2
3
To address the question of where theories come from, a couple of our experts mentioned
4
5
6 that theories also come from observing and attempting to solve real-world puzzles. In other
7
8 words, theory-building happens when you are trying to explain a phenomenon. This approach is
9
10
11
particularly valuable in our field where the desire is that the acceptance of our theories has some
12
13 practical application in the area of management. This view supports the idea that theories come
14
15 in all shapes and sizes and these theories do not have to be big and grand in order to make an
16
17
18 important contribution. A perusal of recent theoretical articles demonstrates this point: most are
19
20 fairly narrowly focused on a single phenomenon or context. One way of driving home this point
21
22 is to ask students to consider the nature of the problem that might have led to the theory’s
23
24
25 development: “What is the value of this theory or research stream?” Alternatively, identifying
26
27 gaps and contradictions in a specific literature stream may enable an approach to understanding a
28
29
particular phenomenon that results in theory development.
30
31
32 Acknowledging that theory-building sometimes involves borrowing from other areas or
33
34 integrating theoretical perspectives (Corley & Gioia, 2011), we offer three suggested approaches.
35
36
37 One activity is to try to apply a theory from another discipline or different sub-field of
38
39 management to a particular research topic in management. A second related activity is to
40
41 consider how a particular theory relates to other topics. For example, a theory of self-regulation
42
43
44 may be related to goal-setting, counterproductive work behaviors, work-family conflict, and
45
46 customer service encounters, among other topics. Finally, integrating two theoretical
47
48 perspectives may provide a novel conceptual contribution.
49
50
51 Lastly, another source of theories is one’s own imagination. As such, many of our experts
52
53 espoused that engaging in thought experiments is a potential venue for theory development (see,
54
55
56
for example, Cornelissen & Durand, 2014; Folger & Turillo, 1999; Weick, 1989). Corley and
57
58
59
60 8
Page 9 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
Gioia’s (2011) call for prescience, “the process of discerning or anticipating what we need to
4
5
6 know” (p. 13), and the framing of this dialogue as an important possibility for theory
7
8 development. This activity can be done in solitary or with a group and can help students to
9
10
11
consider how and why theories may be related to one another.
12
13 How do you build a good theory? The fourth question we answered is “How do you
14
15 build a good theory?” Related to the earlier question, “What is theory?” both questions explore
16
17
18 the criteria by which theory should be evaluated (e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2011). This question is
19
20 distinct from the earlier question in that it also seeks to explore how management researchers can
21
22 partake in the process of building theory. Answering this question requires practical advice about
23
24
25 how to build theory such as that found in books by Dubin (1969) and Smith and Hitt (2005).
26
27 The experts suggested a number of exercises to help students develop or extend a
28
29
theoretical idea. Ideally, students would undertake all of these activities as they work to reinforce
30
31
32 and clarify a theoretical argument or view. The exercises are: (1) Write a paragraph explaining
33
34 the basic idea and why it is important, (2) Create a visual representation, where relevant, of what
35
36
37 the model looks like (e.g., a flowchart, a process model, a 2 x 2 matrix), (3) Explain the idea
38
39 verbally; (4) Create an annotated bibliography of approximately 50 articles that explains how
40
41 each article relates to your idea; (5) Develop a set of propositions; and (6) Write a “bare-bones”
42
43
44 draft of the paper that outlines the basic logic of your model. Engaging in these activities
45
46 multiple times is a prerequisite for developing a clear argument. It is also valuable for students to
47
48 conduct peer reviews of other’s work as it is often easier to recognize conceptual gaps in logic in
49
50
51 other’s work relative to one’s own. Reasoning techniques such as problematizing assumptions
52
53 and counter-factual reasoning are also valuable in the building of a theory. A particular approach
54
55
56
that uses a number of these exercises is described in Whetten (2009).
57
58
59
60 9
 Academy of Management Review Page 10 of 21

1
2
3
One expert described an annotated bibliography (which can be expanded as the paper
4
5
6 develops) as the “data” from which authors derive their theory. Just as in writing an empirical
7
8 paper where authors should be intimately familiar with their data, authors building theory should
9
10
11
have a very good understanding of the “data” that makes up their theoretical model. Creating an
12
13 annotated bibliography gives the student a sense of what it means to be part of the
14
15 “conversation” associated with a particular literature. Being part of this conversation, or
16
17
18 changing the direction of a conversation, requires knowledge of the language of the
19
20 conversation, the history of that conversation, and the boundary conditions of the conversation in
21
22 which they are engaging. However, too much time spent on reviewing the existing literature and
23
24
25 justifying the need for a theoretical perspective often results in manuscripts where the actual
26
27 theoretical contribution is underdeveloped.
28
29
One expert suggested that there should be minimal instruction; students should just “go
30
31
32 and do it [read and write]” and then receive developmental feedback. As part of the feedback
33
34 process this expert suggests that students do post-mortems on themselves by reflecting on what
35
36
37 was more or less effective in facilitating the theorizing process. Another expert commented that
38
39 much of theory building involves being willing to throw out a lot of something you really
40
41 believed in based on feedback from others.
42
43
44 How do you get your theory published? The fifth and final question to answer is “How
45
46 do you get your theory published?” Answering this question involves the consideration of factors
47
48 that increase the chances that your theory will end up being published in a scholarly outlet. For
49
50
51 example, these readings emphasize the importance of clear writing (Ragins, 2012), “selling”
52
53 your idea (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Grant & Pollock, 2011), originality and utility
54
55
56
(Corley & Gioia, 2011), and other practical considerations (Kilduff, 2006).
57
58
59
60 10
Page 11 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
To help students understand how to publish a theoretical contribution, we suggest
4
5
6 students read a wide range of conceptual articles or chapters with an eye toward finding ones that
7
8 they particularly like. Identifying what makes the article or chapter appealing provides a template
9
10
11
that students can follow.
12
13 Additionally, to help students learn about what constitutes publishable theory, another set
14
15 of structured activities is associated with critiquing the ideas of others. It is often difficult for
16
17
18 students to critique theory when it is already published. However, it is helpful for students to see
19
20 how a paper, and its associated theoretical contribution, goes through the review process. Thus,
21
22 one suggestion is to give students an initial draft of a paper that has subsequently been published.
23
24
25 Have the students write a review of the paper and then show them the reviews that were actually
26
27 received. Continue this process until the students have seen every iteration of the paper and the
28
29
associated reviewer comments. As described earlier, another suggestion is for students to critique
30
31
32 the papers of other students. This exercise forces students to think about the reader; engaging in
33
34 new theory from the perspective of a reader gives students an appreciation for being able to
35
36
37 communicate clearly.
38
39 ALWAYS MORE TO LEARN
40
41 We hope that these resources help you in course development, mentoring students, or
42
43
44 your own professional development. We suspect that you have read many of the resources and
45
46 have engaged in many of the activities that we mentioned – you just may not have realized that
47
48 you were engaging in understanding the process of theory development and theory-building.
49
50
51 There seems to be an implicit assumption that students will learn the art of theory development
52
53 through osmosis and engaging in research projects. And, in fact, many eminent researchers do.
54
55
56
For example, many of our experts mentioned that they learned how to develop theory through
57
58
59
60 11
 Academy of Management Review Page 12 of 21

1
2
3
this ad hoc process. However, given the value placed on theoretical contributions, we believe
4
5
6 that it is important to make the goal of theory development more explicit, and to that end, we
7
8 have provided you with some resources to help you reach this goal.
9
10
11
Regardless of what stage you are at in your career, we hope that you get as much out of
12
13 this article as we did in developing it. We are certain that there are notable omissions – readings
14
15 that we should have mentioned or activities we should have included – and we apologize for
16
17
18 these oversights. In fact, we acknowledge that our five questions may only represent the
19
20 foundation for other important questions that should be explored such as “What constitutes a
21
22 theoretical contribution in an empirical paper?” Most management scholars will not attempt to
23
24
25 develop a wholly new theory during the course of their career but it is important to understand
26
27 what journal editors and reviewers mean when they urge you to make a theoretical contribution
28
29
in empirical studies (see, for example, Corley & Gioia, 2011). Another important question might
30
31
32 be, “What constitutes a contribution in other theoretical traditions?” Our colleagues trained in
33
34 institutions or disciplines that fall outside the accepted North American management paradigm
35
36
37 may have additional insights into approaches for making theoretical contributions. However, we
38
39 focused on providing readings and activities that address those questions most asked by readers
40
41 of Academy of Management Review.
42
43
44 COOKING UP GOOD THEORY
45
46 In conclusion, theory development is not easy. In fact, one of our experts stated, “Theory
47
48 writing is one of the most difficult skills because the rules aren’t clear. It is like cooking. You
49
50
51 have to try different things, screw up, be creative, and burn a few things before you get it right.”
52
53 And, like cooking with different ingredients or tools, what resulted in a theoretical contribution
54
55
56
in one instance may not work in other instances. However, we hope that by providing you with
57
58
59
60 12
Page 13 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
some insights from successful contributors to management theory we have provided a basic
4
5
6 recipe for making a theoretical contribution and theory-building that you can adapt to your own
7
8 taste.
9
10
11
Kris Byron & Sherry Thatcher
12
13
14
15 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We are indebted to our cadre of experts, Blake Ashforth, Bruce
16
17
18 Barry, Kevin Corley, Don Hambrick, Amy Hillman, Belle Ragins, and David Sluss, who
19
20 graciously shared their thoughts, syllabi, and other materials with us. Many thanks to the AMR
21
22 associate editors who shared additional insights about how to help others learn about theory and
23
24
25 theory-building.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 13
 Academy of Management Review Page 14 of 21

1
2
3
REFERENCES
4
5
6 Bacharach, S. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
7
8 Management Review, 14: 496-515.
9
10
11
Colquitt, J.A., & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-
12
13 decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management
14
15 Journal, 50: 1281-1303.
16
17
18 Corley, K. & Gioia, D. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a
19
20 theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12-32.
21
22 Cornelissen, J.P. & Durand, R. 2014. Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in
23
24
25 management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 995-1022.
26
27 Davis, M. 1971. That’s interesting! Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309-344.
28
29
Dubin, R. 1969. Theory building. New York: The Free Press.
30
31
32 Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
33
34 Review, 14: 532-550.
35
36
37 Folger, R., & Turillo, C.J. 1999. Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of
38
39 Management Review, 24: 742-758.
40
41 Forster, E.M. 1927. Aspects of the Novel. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
42
43
44 Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. 2011. From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ Part 3: Setting the
45
46 hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 873-879.
47
48 Hambrick, D. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?
49
50
51 Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346-1352.
52
53 Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31:
54
55
56
252-255.
57
58
59
60 14
Page 15 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the
4
5
6 processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318-
7
8 337.
9
10
11
Ragins, B. R. 2012. Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review,
12
13 37: 493-501.
14
15 Smith, K. & Hitt, M. (Eds.) 2005. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory
16
17
18 Development. Oxford University Press.
19
20 Sutton, R. & Staw, B. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.
21
22 Van de Ven, A. 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management
23
24
25 Review, 14: 486-489.
26
27 Weick, K. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management
28
29
Review, 14: 516-531.
30
31
32 Weick, K. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-
33
34 390.
35
36
37 Whetten, D., Felin, T. & King, B. 2009. The practice of theory borrowing in organizational
38
39 studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35: 537-563.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 15
 Academy of Management Review Page 16 of 21

1
2
3
APPENDIX
4
5
6 Suggested Reading List by Learning Objective
7
8
9
10
11
Learning Objective 1: What is (and isn’t) Theory?
12
13 Bacharach, S. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
14
15 Management Review, 14: 496-515.
16
17
18 Bartunek, J., Rynes, S. & Ireland, D. 2006. What makes management research interesting and
19
20 why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9-15.
21
22 Bergh, D. D. 2003. From the editors: Thinking strategically about contribution. Academy of
23
24
25 Management Review, 46: 135-136.
26
27 Corley, K. & Gioia, D. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a
28
29
theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12-32.
30
31
32 Davis, M. 1971. That’s interesting! Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309-344.
33
34 DiMaggio, P. 1995. Comments on “what theory is not.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:
35
36
37 391-397.
38
39 Higgins, E.T. 2004. Making a theory useful: Lessons handed down. Personal and Social
40
41 Psychology Review, 8: 138-145
42
43
44 Miner, J.B. 2003. The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of
45
46 organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management
47
48 Learning and Education, 2: 250-268.
49
50
51 Pfeffer, J. 1982. Some criteria for evaluating theory. In J. Pfeffer, Organizations and
52
53 Organization Theory: 37-40. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 16
Page 17 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
Popper, K. R. 1959. A survey of some fundamental problems. In K. R. Popper, The Logic of
4
5
6 Scientific Discovery: 27-48. London: Hutchinson.
7
8 Popper, K. R. 1959. Excerpt from The problem of the empirical basis. In K. R. Popper, The
9
10
11
Logic of Scientific Discovery: 108-111. London: Hutchinson.
12
13 Sutton, R. & Staw, B. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.
14
15 Weick, K. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-
16
17
18 390.
19
20 Whetten, D. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
21
22 Review, 4: 490-495.
23
24
25
26
27 Learning Objective 2: Should We Care about Theory?
28
29
Cannella, A. & Paetzold, R. 1994. Pfeffer’s barriers to the advancement of organizational
30
31
32 science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19: 331-341.
33
34 Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. 2005. Economics language and assumptions: How theories
35
36
37 can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 8-24.
38
39 Greenwald et al. 1986. Under what conditions does theory restrict research projects?
40
41 Psychological Review, 93: 216-229.
42
43
44 Hambrick, D. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?
45
46 Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346-1352.
47
48 Helfat, C. 2007. Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management.
49
50
51 Strategic Organization, 5: 185-192.
52
53 Miller, D. 2005. Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization, 5:
54
55
56
177-184.
57
58
59
60 17
 Academy of Management Review Page 18 of 21

1
2
3
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advancement of organizational science: Paradigm development
4
5
6 as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599-620.
7
8 Suddaby, R. 2014. Editors’ comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39: 407-
9
10
11
411.
12
13 Van de Ven, A. 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management
14
15 Review, 14: 486-489.
16
17
18 Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research.
19
20 New York: Oxford.
21
22
23
24
25 Learning Objective 3: Where Do New Theories Come From?
26
27 Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory
28
29
development. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1265-1281.
30
31
32 Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization.
33
34 Academy of Management Review, 36: 247-271.
35
36
37 Boxenbaum, E. & Rouleau, L. 2011. New knowledge products as bricolage: Metaphors and
38
39 scripts in organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 36: 272-296.
40
41 Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
42
43
44 Review, 14: 532-550.
45
46 Fiske, S.T. 2004. Mind the gap: In praise of informal sources of formal theory. Personality and
47
48 Social Psychology Review, 8:132-137.
49
50
51 Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of
52
53 Management Review, 15: 584-602.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 18
Page 19 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
Lewis, M. & Grimes, A. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms.
4
5
6 Academy of Management Review, 24: 672-690.
7
8 Morgeson, F. P., & Hoffman, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs:
9
10
11
Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management
12
13 Review, 24: 249-265.
14
15 Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the
16
17
18 processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318-
19
20 337.
21
22 Poole, M. & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization
23
24
25 theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562-578.
26
27 Shepherd, D. & Sutcliffe, K. 2011. Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of
28
29
organization. Academy of Management Review, 36: 361-380.
30
31
32 Suddaby, R., Hardy, C. & Huy, Q. 2011. Where are the new theories of organizations? Academy
33
34 of Management Review, 36: 236-246.
35
36
37 Weick, K. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management
38
39 Review, 14: 516-531.
40
41 Whetten, D., Felin, T. & King, B. 2009. The practice of theory borrowing in organizational
42
43
44 studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35: 537-563.
45
46
47
48 Learning Objective 4: How Do You Build a Good Theory?
49
50
51 Dubin, R. 1969. Theory building. New York: The Free Press.
52
53 Folger, R., & Turillo, C.J. (1999). Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of
54
55
56
Management Review, 24, 742-758.
57
58
59
60 19
 Academy of Management Review Page 20 of 21

1
2
3
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. 2010. Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical
4
5
6 guide for social scientists. New York: Guilford Press. (J&J)
7
8 Smith, K. & Hitt, M. 2005. Great minds in management: The process of theory development.
9
10
11
New York: Oxford University Press.
12
13 Smith, K. & Hitt, M. 2005. Epilogue: Learning how to develop theory from the masters. In K.
14
15 Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory
16
17
18 Development: 572-589. New York: Oxford University Press.
19
20 Smith, K. & Hitt, M. 2005. Introduction: The process of developing management theory. In K.
21
22 Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory
23
24
25 Development: 1-8. New York: Oxford University Press.
26
27 Whetten, D. 2002. Modeling-as-Theorizing: A systematic methodology for theory development.
28
29
In D. Parington (Eds.), Essential Skills for Management Research: 46-72. London:
30
31
32 Sage.
33
34
35
36
37 Learning Objective 5: How Do You Get Your Theory Published?
38
39 Bem, D.J. 1995. Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin,
40
41 118: 172-177.
42
43
44 Huff, A.S. 1999. Part I and Part II. In A. S. Huff, Writing for scholarly publication: ix-63.
45
46 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47
48 Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31:
49
50
51 252-255.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 20
Page 21 of 21 Academy of Management Review

1
2
3
Colquitt, J.A., & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-
4
5
6 decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management
7
8 Journal, 50: 1281-1303.
9
10
11
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring
12
13 intertextual coherence and "problematizing" in organizational studies. Academy of
14
15 Management Journal, 40: 1023-1062.
16
17
18 Ragins, B. R. 2012. Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review,
19
20 37 (4): 493-501.
21
22 Rindova, V. 2008. Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management
23
24
25 Review, 33: 300-303.
26
27 Schneider, B. 1995. Some propositions about getting research published. In L. L. Cummings &
28
29
P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizational Sciences (2nd Edition): 216–226.
30
31
32 Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 21