Organizational life and research regularly involve having to explain specific events. This paper considers how such explanations might be evaluated. We outline a theory of causal explanations as answers to why-questions and introduce criteria to assess such explanations. The criteria are illustrated via an analysis of different explanations proposed for the remarkable success of Honda’s entry into the US motorcycle market.
Azevedo, J.1997. Mapping Reality: An Evolutionary Realist Methodology for the Natural and Social Sciences, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
2.
Azevedo, J.2002. Updating Organizational Epistemology, in Baum, J.A.C. (ed.) Companion to Orgnizations, New York, Oxford University Press, 715-732.
3.
Boston Consulting Group (BSG).1975. Strategy Alternatives for the British Motorcycle Industry. H.M. Stationery Office, London.
4.
Campbell, D.T.1974. Evolutionary Epistemology, in P.A. Schlipp (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Popper, LaSalle: Open Court, 413-463.
5.
Campbell, D.T.1975. "Degrees of Freedom" and the Case Study, Comparative Political Studies8(2), 178-193.
6.
Cao, T.Y.2004. Ontology and Scientific Explanation, in Cornwell, J. (ed.) Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173-195.
7.
Cartwright, N.1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford : Oxford University Press.
8.
Cartwright, N.1989. Nature’s Capacities and their Measurement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Cartwright, N.1999. The Dappled World: A study of the Boundaries of Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Cohen, L.J.1986. Twelve Questions about Keynes’s Concept of Weight , British Journal for the Philosophy of Science37, 263-278.
11.
Davidson, D.1963. Actions, Reasons, and Causes, Journal of Philosophy60: 685-99.
12.
DiMaggio, P.J.1995. Comments on "What theory is not". Administrative Science Quarterly40: 391-397.
13.
Elster, J.1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Fleetwood, S. and Ackroyd, S. (eds.) 2000. Realist Perspectives of Business and Organization, London: Routledge .
15.
Fleetwood, S. and Ackroyd, S. (eds.). 2004. Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies, London: Routledge.
16.
Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K.1993. Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts convince, Organization Science4(4), 595-616.
17.
Goold, M.1996. Design, Learning and Planning: A Further Observation on the Design School Debate, California Management Review38, 94-95 (excerpted from the section ‘Research Notes and Communications’ in the Strategic Management Journal13, 1992, 169-170).
18.
Gouldner, A.W.1954. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Glencoe: Free Press.
19.
Hacking, I.1982. Experimentation and Scientific Realism, Philosophical Topics, 13: 154-172.
20.
Hacking, I.1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Hacking, I.1999. The Social Construction of What, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
22.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K.1994. Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
23.
Harre, R.1989. Modes of Explanation, in D. Hilton (ed.), Contemporary science and natural explanation: Commonsense conceptions of causality, Brighton: Harvester Press, 129-144.
24.
Harre, R. and Madden, E.H.1975. Causal Powers, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
25.
Heimann, C.F.1993. Understanding the Challenger disaster: Organizational structure and the design of reliable systems. American Political Science Review, 87(2): 421-435.
26.
Hempel, C.1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York: The Free Press.
27.
Hempel, C. and P. Oppenheim.1948. Studies in the Logic of Explanation, Philosophy of Science15, 135-75.
28.
Kanter, R.M.1977. Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.
29.
Kaplan, A.1964. The Conduct of Inquiry, New York: Harper & Row
30.
Kay, J.2004. Driving through the spin on Honda’s big success , Financial Times, 16 November 2004.
31.
Kuhn, T.S.1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Lawson, T.1997. Economics and Reality, London: Routledge.
Lieberson, S. and F.B. Lynn.2002. Barking Up the Wrong Branch: Scientific Alternatives to the Current Model of Sociological Science, Annual Review of Sociology28, 1-19.
35.
Lipton, P.1991. Inference to the best explanation, London: Routledge.
36.
Lipton, P.2004. What good is an explanation? in Cornwell, J. (ed.) Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173-195.
37.
Mair, A.1999. Learning from Japan? Interpretations of Honda Motors by Strategic Management Theorists, Nissan Occasional Paper Series, no. 29. This is an extended version of Mair, A. (1999) Learning from Honda, Journal of Management Studies36: 25-34.
38.
March, J.G., L.S. Sproull, and M. Tamuz.1991. Learning from samples of one or fewer , Organization Science2(1), 1-13.
39.
Mayer, E.1961. Cause and effect in Biology. Science134: 1501-1506.
40.
McCloskey, D.N.1985. The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison : University of Wisconsin Press.
41.
McCloskey, D.N.1994. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Merton, R.K.1967. On Theoretical Sociology. New York : The Free Press.
43.
Mill, J.S.1843A System of Logic, London: John W. Parker.
44.
Miller, R.W.1987. Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Social Sciences, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
45.
Mintzberg, H.1973. The Nature of Managerial Work, New York: Harper & Row.
46.
Mintzberg, H.1990The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management, Strategic Management Journal11: 171-195.
47.
Mintzberg, H.1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, New York: Free Press.
48.
Mintzberg, H.1996a. Introduction (to the CMR Forum: ‘The "Honda Effect" Revisited’, California Management Review38, 78-79.
49.
Mintzberg, H.1996b. Learning 1, Planning 0, California Management Review38, 92-93.
50.
Mintzberg, H.1996c Reply to Michael Goold, California Management Review38, 96-99.
51.
Mintzberg, H.2005. Developing Theory and the Development of Theory, forthcoming in Smith and Hitt, Great Minds in Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
Mintzberg, H. and A. McHugh.1985. Strategy formation in an adhocracy, Administrative Science Quarterly30: 160-197
53.
Mintzberg, H. and J.A. Waters.1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent, Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257-272
54.
Nagel, T.1986. The View from Nowhere, New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
Pascale, R.T.1978. Zen and the art of management. Harvard Business Review (March-April): 153-162
56.
Pascale, R.T.1984. Perspectives on Strategy: The Real Story Behind Honda’s Success, California Management Review26, 47-72.
57.
Pascale, R.T.1996. The Honda Effect, California Management Review38, 80-91.
58.
Pascale, R.T. and A.G. Athos.1986/ The Art of Japanese Management,
59.
1981 . London: Penguin Books.
60.
Pettigrew, A.M.1979. On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly24(4), 570-581
61.
Pettigrew, A.M.1985. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical Industrie , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
62.
Popper, K.R.1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson.
63.
Popper, K.R.1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Popper, Karl R.1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Rumelt, R.P.1996. The Many Faces of Honda, California Management Review38, 103-111.
66.
Runde, J.1991. Keynesian Uncertainty and the Weight of Arguments, Economics and Philosophy6, 277-292.
67.
Runde, J.2002. Filling in the Background, Journal of Economic Methodology9, 11-30.
68.
Sakiya, T.1987. Honda Motor: The Men, The Management, The Machines. Tokyo: Kodansha International (2nd Edition).
69.
Salmon, W.C.1990. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
70.
Salmon, W.C.1998a. Why ask, "Why?"?: An Inquiry Concerning Scientific Explanation . Causality and Explanation, Oxford: OUP, 125-141. Reprinted from Salmon (1978) Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 51, 683-705.
71.
Salmon, W.C.1998b Scientific Explanation: Causation and Unification. Causality and Explanation, Oxford: OUP, 68-71. Reprinted from Salmon (1990) Crítica22, 3-21.
72.
Sayer, A.1984. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, London: Hutchinson.
73.
Sayer, A.2000. Realism and Social Science, London : Sage.
74.
Searle, J.R.1995. The Construction of Social Reality, London: Penguin Press.
75.
Searle, J.R.2001. Rationality in Action. Cambridge Mass. : MIT Press.
76.
Selznick, P. 1949/ T.V.A. and the Grass Roots, Berkeley :
77.
1966. University of California Press.
78.
Starbuck, W.H.2006. Organizational Realities: Studies of Strategizing and Organizing, New York: Oxford University Press.
79.
Sutton, R.I. and B.M. Staw.1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 371-384.
80.
Tilly, C.2006. Why?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.
Tsoukas, H.1989. The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations, Academy of Management Review14: 551-561.
82.
Van de Ven, A.H.2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, New York: Oxford University Press.
83.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Johnson, P.E.2006. Knowledge for Theory and Practice, Academy of Management Review31: 802-829.
84.
Weick, K.E.1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 385-390.
85.
Wilson, E.J. and Woodside, AG1999. Degrees-of-Freedom Analysis of Case Data in Business Marketing Research, Industrial Marketing Management28, 215-229.
86.
Woodward, J.2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
