distill existing literature on theoretical contribution into two dimensions, origi- nality (incremental or revelatory) and utility (scientific or practical).
BUILDING THEORY ABOUT THEORY BUILDING: WHAT CONSTITUTES A
THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION?
KEVIN G. CORLEY Arizona State University
DENNIS A. GIOIA The Pennsylvania State University
We distill existing literature on theoretical contribution into two dimensions, origi- nality (incremental or revelatory) and utility (scientific or practical). We argue for a revision in the way scholars approach the utility dimension by calling for a view of theorizing that would enable theories with more “scope” (both scientific and practical utility). We also argue for an orientation toward “prescience” as a way of achieving scope and fulfilling our scholarly role of facilitating organizational and societal adaptiveness.
Theory is the currency of our scholarly realm, even if there are some misgivings about a possible overemphasis on theory building in organization and management studies (Hambrick, 2007). Every top-tier man- agement journal requires a “theoretical contri- bution” before a manuscript will be consid- ered for publication. This tenet is perhaps most strongly felt in this journal, the Academy of Management’s premier conceptual journal (and also, not inconsequentially, the most cited journal in organization studies [based on Web of Science� Journal Citation Reports� data for 2009]). Consistent with this concern, the Academy of Management Review (AMR) has published two special issues dedicated to theory building (1989, issue 4, and 1999, issue 4) and numerous “Editor’s Comments” dedi- cated to trying to articulate what constitutes either theory (e.g., Brief, 2003; Conlon, 2002) or a theoretical contribution (e.g., Kilduff, 2006; Whetten, 1990). These writings, however, de- spite their thoughtfulness, do not represent comprehensive treatments, especially of the latter issue, and do not seem to have hit the mark in a way that provides a satisfactory
resolution to the crucial question of what makes for a theoretical contribution. Thus, scholars are still trying to articulate what it means to make a theoretical contribution (Bar- tunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006; Kilduff, 2006; Rindova, 2008; Smith & Hitt, 2005).
A question that typically arises at this point is “What is theory?” Although there are many an- swers to this question, there is little agreement on a universal definition—to wit, “Lack of con- sensus on exactly what theory is may explain why it is so difficult to develop strong theory in the behavioral sciences” (Sutton & Staw, 1995: 372). For our purposes we use a simple, general definition: theory is a statement of concepts and their interrelationships that shows how and/or why a phenomenon occurs (cf. Gioia & Pitre, 1990). We believe, however, that a more pro- ductive question to ask, and for us to address, is “What is a theoretical contribution?” That is, what signifies a significant theoretical (as op- posed to an empirical or a methodological) advancement in our understanding of a phenomenon?
Part of the difficulty in delineating the elusive concept of theoretical contribution is that orga- nization and management studies is an eclectic field—and one with multiple stakeholders as well. Not only do we self-identify as “borrowers” from many other scientific disciplines (e.g., psy- chology, sociology, economics, etc.) but we also claim to speak to both academics and practition- ers. This medley of foundations, voices, and au-
We offer a heartfelt thanks to Blake Ashforth, Don Ham- brick, Trevis Certo, Don Lange, Glen Kreiner, and our anon- ymous reviewers for their helpful comments and critiques on earlier versions of this paper. We especially acknowledge Amy Hillman for her encouragement, commentary, and ex- cellent guidance throughout the revision process.
� Academy of Management Review 2011, Vol. 36, No. 1, 12–32.
12 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
diences often creates confusion when discuss- ing contributions. What exactly is the consensual basis for claiming and assessing theoretical contribution? More pointedly, is there a consensual basis for declaring whether a theoretical contribution exists? One basis for arguing that our field has vague or inadequate standards for assessing theoretical contribution arises from comparing the list of AMR’s Best Articles (awarded one year after publication) with the list of each year’s most cited AMR paper over the same years (based on Web of Science� Social Sciences Citation Index� and/or Google Scholar counts). In only four of the last eighteen years does the paper currently most cited also turn out to be the one chosen as the AMR Best Article for its year of publication (see Table 1), despite the “competitive advantage” in citations such articles have from their publicity for win- ning the award in the first place. This somewhat disconcerting statistic seems to imply some dis- crepancy in assessing a paper’s value right af- ter publication and its value in the future.
As scholars familiar with the practice of de- veloping theoretical contributions, we believe the time is right for our field to turn a reflective lens on itself and try to establish more clearly not only what currently constitutes a theoretical contribution but also, and perhaps more impor- tant, what should constitute a theoretical contri- bution in the future. To help accomplish the first and set the stage for the second, we established two goals for this paper. First, we hope to con- tribute to the practice of making a contribution to theory as it currently stands. Toward this end, we provide a synthesis of the dimensions cur- rently used to justify the existence of a theoret- ical contribution and provide some perspective on the usefulness of these dimensions. Our syn- thesis reveals two dimensions—originality and utility—that currently dominate considerations of theoretical contribution. We also note two subcategories underlying each of these main dimensions, which provide a more nuanced de- scription of the current craft of contributing to theory.
Second, we hope to contribute to what we might call the theory of theoretical contribu- tion—to build theory about theory building, if you will. Thus, we use our synthesis of the liter- ature, as well as our reading of AMR’s Best Ar- ticles and most cited papers listed in Table 1, as
a point of departure for outlining the need for a renewed and reframed emphasis on practice- oriented utility as a focus for future theorizing. In addition, we call for and encourage organiza- tion scholars to adopt an orientation toward pre- science in their theorizing. We define prescience as the process of discerning or anticipating what we need to know and, equally important, of influencing the intellectual framing and dia- logue about what we need to know. An orienta- tion toward prescience holds some promise for advancing our craft of theory development, as well as enhancing the receptivity of the audi- ences for our developing theories beyond the academy and, therefore, conferring a greater po- tential for influencing the organizations and so- cieties we study.
We structure the rest of the article around these two issues. We begin with a synthesis of the theoretical contribution literature as it per- tains to the field of management and organiza- tion studies, highlighting the current state of the art for making a contribution to theory in our top-tier management journals. Building on this synthesis, we then argue that a practice per- spective on theory building would lead to our theories having greater scope and, furthermore, that an orientation toward prescience would en- hance the value and impact of our theoretical contributions. Finally, we discuss implications of our proposals for the field.
