Summary - What Is Not Theory
Summary - What Is Not Theory
Summary - What Is Not Theory
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995) What the theory is. ASQ 40: 371384.
Authors usually use references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses to replace good theories.
Journals should be more receptive to articles that evaluate part of the theory and use descriptive
data rather than deterministic data.
There is no consensus on whether models and theories can be distinguished, whether typology is a
theory and the value of "interest" in theories, and whether falsification is a prerequisite. Scholars are
forced to compromise between generality, simplicity, and precision.
A large number of references to existing theories do not produce new theories. Sometimes the
included reference is a smokescreen or a "throw away" reference. The author should explain what
concepts and arguments are used from the cited sources and how they relate to development
theory.
The data describe an observed empirical pattern and the theory explains why an empirical pattern is
observed. The data are supportive but not constitute a theory actually. Those who use qualitative
data, if they want to include theories, must present causal arguments to explain why the results
were observed.
A theory is not a definition of a concept. A list of variables that covers all possible determinants is
useful for explanation, but it is not a theory in itself. The comparative test of variables is not a
theoretical comparative test. The key question is again why certain variables are more important.
Diagrams can help explain how phenomena occur, but they cannot explain why. Good theories are
usually representative and verbal. With a solid theory, you can discern when a major hypothesis is
most likely or least likely to be true.
A theoretical model is more than just a statement of hypotheses. A hypothesis is a statement about
what is expected to happen, not why it is expected to happen. Prediction without logic is not a
theory. A solid theoretical essay is both simple and connected.
The theory answers why. It is about the connection between phenomena. In-depth understanding of
the underlying process. It is intertwined with a set of compelling and logically interconnected
arguments. Wick said that a good theory can explain, predict and please.
Most researchers have received experimental training, not in theory building. To be successful, it is
very difficult to get both these skills and still have them published. Theories are usually built around
data. Therefore, the skill of writing manuscripts becomes the art of adjusting concepts and
arguments around what has been measured and discovered.
Some suggestions
At this point, it is easier to agree on a strong empirical paper without a theory than a paper with
weaker evidence for new theoretical ideas. Unfortunately, the papers selected for review seem to be
those with acceptable methods and imperfect theory.
The author's suggestion is to rebalance the selection process between theory and method. Journals
should publish articles whose theory is stronger than method. This is similar to qualitative research,
but not applicable to quantitative research. Ethnographic descriptions are rarely published if they
are not the source of new concepts or ideas. In qualitative research, theory is often overemphasized.
2) DiMaggio, Paul J., Comments on "What Theory is Not", ASQ, 40: (1995)
391397.
DiMaggio found that the situation between theories is more complicated than that of Shaw and
Sutton:
Some traditional theories are just statements of the world we see. Here, researchers are often eager
to find higher R squares and explanations.
Sudden lighting device. Such theories are complicated, unfamiliar, and full of paradoxes. This is a
"surprise machine".
Theory as narrative
Explains the social process and provides evidence of the rationality of the narrative. Sutton and Shaw
took this into consideration when discussing theories. However, explaining means explaining the
difference.
Many of the best theories are a mixture of the above methods. One problem is that these methods
are driven by different values and purposes.
Clarity vs Defamiliarization
It is necessary to balance the behaviour of helping readers to see the world with new words / eyes,
rather than overly confusing them.
Comprehensiveness vs Memorability
Sometimes our search for novelty causes us to overlook the most important variables (though
uninteresting).
Resonance
"The reception of a theory is shaped by the extent to which a theory resonates with the cultural
presuppositions of the time and of the scientific audience that consumes it". The environment in
which evolutionary arguments are released changes. Cultural change modifies the metaphors that
we think with.
People often simplify the things they read until they fit into pre-existing schemas. If a paper is widely
read by others not expert in the original field it gets further refined and simplified. New ideas get
lumped into either "hard" or "soft" intuitive notions.
Theories are socially constructed after they are written. It’s a cooperative venture between writer
and readers. We often reduce theories to slogans.