Abstract
The problem with organizational scholarship today is that theory weighs heavily, ‘like a nightmare on the brains of the living’ (Marx, 1852/1926). Constant emphasis on advancing theory in its various forms is the basic currency of who we are – and our ‘value’ – as scholars. The problem is that this approach to theory limits us by restructuring our worldview around ‘contributions’, research programmes and publishing. Paradoxically, this same outlook may also hold us back. Like struggling addicts, we are increasingly dependent on modelling theory for new insights even while recognizing that an overreliance on ‘formalized’ theorizing may not be useful. Modelling theory is how we engage discussion with each other about theory in all its different forms – the conversations we have with each other about a theory and its development, regardless of epistemology or methods of analysis. By modelling I am referring not to a theory itself or its different philosophies of science, but to the circuitous stock taking that is debating theory, its generation, construction, or validation. With an ongoing demand for theoretical contribution, organizational researchers have assumed that the best way to advance theory is by providing value and shape through such reflection. Clearly, there is a place and space for debating theory because the academy does not exist without it. But infinite modelling won’t fix known theorizing problems. It’s the modelling, stupid (not the theory)!
Far from being a catalyst, increasingly adopting a programmatic, modelling approach to theorizing embodies the foundations of the problem it critiques. Though part of our scholarly DNA, modelling is relatively simplistic in its approach: we constantly reflect on existing theory we use or want to use, following each other with more nuanced debate on this theory, and then, ironically, answering (and asking) questions on theoretical novelty or contribution. Today, any way we look at it, there is more sophisticated theory in organization studies (and lots of it). Yet, these advances are inward looking as we model layers of theory for each other, trapping us in an echo chamber of debating variants of a ‘theory crisis’ (too much/not enough; quality/contribution; forms/approach) all while socialized to repeatedly debate these same variants, but with subtle amendment. Think about it: there is so much introspection on logjams and problems associated with theory and theorizing, year on year, yet we keep on reading the same debates. Why?
Engaging each other like this is tantamount to building a scholarly Ponzi scheme; we buy into this debate and ‘reinvest’ attention in a theory as we know it, so that this same modelling comes to dominate knowledge production itself, for decades. The net effect is that we are not progressing theory like we think we are; we are talking to each other on theory and about theory and introspecting as a community of practice on that as an advance (and Organization Studies is just as culpable as others with its essai, provocation, contestation, reimagination and reflection). History suggests that breaking this ‘tradition’ of theory as a topic of reflection is unlikely without concrete corrective action. And so our circuitous trip down a pathway of modelling is established and predictable theory continues.
By orienting researchers to known theory and the current state of a theory (such as front-loading literature reviews), such modelling becomes an underlying default scholarly position that continues to cultivate the problem. This approach to theory is limiting based on how it places knowledge; of how theory moves from production, to transmission, to use. In this context, and borrowing from Maturana and Varela (1992) on knowing how we know, in making modelling so central to our identity, perhaps we are overlooking a basic feature of forms of theorizing: do we understand what it is that we see when faced with reality as it appears to us, or are we too focused on debating ‘our’ theories and its mechanisms? At the heart of this query is the need to consider the extent to which our experiences shape and bind our awareness of knowledge, and its effect on the process of knowing by means of modelling theory. Yet these roots of knowing are often overlooked. So, problematizing theory by perpetually modelling it, organizational researchers seem to have adopted a pathway of neatly categorizing knowledge production from theory. As a correction, we need to repair the way we debate and introspect on theory first, in order to move beyond the known knowns (reflective frameworks for understanding) that we continue to rely on when it comes to theory in our field; of how theory informs research (not just a topic) and thus our knowledge.
Ultimately, the problem resides in how we view modelling theory as a programme. Instead, is it not time now to try and be even less programmatic, even less scripted, even less standardized? To advance beyond what we already do, it is crucial to let go of the boundaries inherent in modelling theory. This realization means a sea-change is needed – fewer prescriptive editorials on ‘good theory’, fewer workshops on theory building idealization, less of an emphasis on top-heavy, theory imbalanced papers. To reach this outcome, and change the way we debate theory, we must recognize two interlocking distractions.
The False Premise of Modelling Theory
Theory is rarely uniform and yet it is modelled programmatically; collecting knowledge on a topic and debating it. Strangely, despite its pitfalls, we still interact on and about theory based on established, decades old and functional explanations of scientific logic and knowledge building. Yet debating theory by seeking out coherence will constrain future insights, because theorizing is about tradeoffs as it emerges, grows and synthesizes. The pantheon of debate on publishing, application and research relevance in an ordered way is voluminous. Such views typically focus inward, debating what kind of academy we have forged, highlighting theory that would be useful to practice (assuming academic researchers know this), and demonstrating how to produce or transfer such knowledge (placing value on knowledge). Still, the longevity of such debate also makes for limited deep inroads into these established insights, particularly on the types of knowledge delivered, which are core to impact.
Recognizing this limit, we must query the assumed clarity provided in theory modelling. Does theory application have to exist in a synthesized way – that good theory has a coherent pathway that always flows forward, promoting known, common approaches (sensemaking, clarity, causal linkages, etc.) through reconciliation? Taking Barrett’s (2012) mantra, perhaps we should more emphatically say ‘yes to the mess’ when it comes to how we theorize through repetitive reflection because theory is a cluttered continuum that unravels as it develops. It evolves intuitively because knowledge flows randomly alongside understanding.
This grounding challenges an assumption that theory accumulates and organizes programmatically into knowledge. And that is precisely the point. The problem with modelling theory resides in what we have always done by attempting to formalize organization research – an approach that many journals keep on following through field reviews and challenge essays distinguishing different types of theoretical integrations. As a way forward – a correction – let’s (re)promote the messier notion of modelling theory. Let’s rely less on diagnosing theory and approach our research by relying more on crafting meaning from loosely structured knowledge (such as improvisation or dialogic deliberation). Let’s double down and consider more seriously stepping back from the premise on the absoluteness of a process for theory reconciliation. Let’s create a sort of garbage-can model of reflecting on theory. This approach will weaken our absolute reliance on always modelling ‘theory contributions’ in a formal way. How willing are you to ‘let theory go’ in this way and challenge your scholarly identity beyond what you already do?
To make any corrections, we need to acknowledge that while a contemporary focus on modelling theory reflects the trap of looking for the (formal) process of knowing, theory manifests from our spontaneous and collective lived experiences and the coherency of that experience, not necessarily relying on a set process for integrating coherence. While there is less certainty in theory reliant on such assimilation and accommodation, an alternative would be to envisage theory as a good mixture between the formal ‘programme’, and the spontaneity and improvisational discovery from community response. Let’s obsess less about debating a neat edge to a theory, precisely because theorizing is this creative, messy journey.
Justified Theorizing (By) Default
Central to messaging in organizational studies on theory is the notion of building ‘good theory’ – the extent to which theory creates value and bring us forward in our knowledge development and its accuracy. But modelling theory relies on the assumption that a theory crisis needs solving because it exists – a sort of Gettierian (1963) justified theorizing. With this interpretation, modelling becomes a matter of how things can be, justified as accurate. This outlook misleads us. Knowledge from modelling theory relies on an acceptance of both the theory crisis, and that it is not yet fixed, suggesting that the problem is based on the proposition that it has never been resolved and needs more theory to do so. And so we debate theory and different forms of theorizing. But don’t organizational researchers already recognize what good theory looks like, and that the problem resides in us and how we use theory, not necessarily its formal process? Instead, a different approach is to more readily let knowledge be guided by the phenomenon being theorized, not modelling more theory in order to establish that the phenomenon exists.
In this way, modelling theory presents a paradox – more sophisticated debate still embeds known problems with theory, risking us undertaking research supporting the status quo (see commitment to change, leadership, strategy theories). The outcome: we debate the same aspect with the same lens but with different sources. We seemingly are trapped in rinsing and repeating the same long-standing, fundamental themes, questions and problems on theory. So, successive approaches to theorizing tend to assume what is knowledge at the outset and then use this assumption to explain and understand behaviour and developments, leading to explore extensions of what is known, while still calling this ‘good theory’. The field is dominated by research based on familiar knowledge, because that was all that was on offer, often presenting dialogue previously considered but forgotten or overlooked, enabling us to continue introspecting the same known issues.
By relying on adjusting repetitive debate, we simply etch a notch into the intellectual tree as a territorial mark of our generation. Yet continuing well-crafted and well-established formal narratives on the perils and problems with theory in organization research highlights the limits of knowledge transmission. The span of our judgements is imperfect and so our understanding is only resolved by chunking known information into manageable, useable sequences – a pitfall of justified theorizing.
Moving the dial forward, it is unclear how our current modelling approach can really facilitate fresh discovery that does not align with what we know. More neat debate on more theory will not bring salvation. A different outlook is needed if we expect different outcomes on theory. Continuing to rely on the modelling pathway, we inadvertently theorize in a way that will always lead us down the garden path toward more of the same. To advance on theory and its problems may be outside our comfort zone because modelling theory treads and forgets familiar ground and ongoing debates. The problem with modelling theory resides in us. But so does the solution.