What’s up with our obsession with the theoretical contribution: A means to an end or an end in and of itself?

Abstract

Knowledge production in the discipline of management and organization studies (MOS) is in a labyrinth of its own making. Over the last 30 years, scholars in the discipline have exhibited an intransigent obsession with the theoretical contribution. At this juncture, with Organization about to commence its fourth decade in publication, I would like to take the opportunity to pause as well as to reflect on some of the implications and the consequences that emanate from this obsession. Drawing on specific examples from MOS, I focus my analysis on three mechanisms through which the discipline’s obsession with the theoretical contribution poses unintended but detrimental outcomes on knowledge production: (1) unnecessary proliferation of theoretical constructs, (2) building theory upon theory rather than empirical validation, and (3) making theory for theory’s sake.

The problematic institutionalization of the theoretical contribution

Knowledge production in the discipline of management and organization studies (MOS) is in a labyrinth of its own making. As the discipline has evolved, there persists an intransigent obsession with the theoretical contribution. Indeed, if an MOS scholar hopes to publish their work in a disciplinary journal—especially one that is highly ranked based on traditional metrics—it is incumbent upon them to spell out a novel and a substantial theoretical contribution. To be sure, this remains the expectation regardless of whether the scholar is to target their work for an American journal or a European journal; whether it adopts a critical approach or a mainstream approach, or; whether the intention is to publish an empirical study or a conceptual study. Even editors and reviewers of journals that are exclusively dedicated to publishing review articles, typically insist that authors offer a meaningful theoretical contribution on the subject matter being reviewed. The obstinate demand for a theoretical contribution has become reified and it seems as though there are few spaces within the publishing “game” that allow for researchers to escape it (Butler and Spoelstra, 2020; Prasad, 2013). Perhaps it comes as little surprise, then, that highly ranked journals habitually publish editorials and essays on what constitutes a theoretical contribution. Such pieces rarely offer a coherent rationale for why the theoretical contribution is necessary (beyond the need to placate reviewers) and are ostensibly laden with either prescriptive or formulaic advice as to how to go about crafting a contribution worthy of publication (e.g. Cloutier and Langley, 2020; Corley and Gioia, 2011; Cornelissen and Durand, 2014; Makadok et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2023; Whetten, 1989).

At this juncture, with this journal concluding its third decade in circulation, I would like to take the opportunity to pause as well as to reflect on some of the implications and the consequences that emanate from our discipline’s obsession with the theoretical contribution. Adding to the recent critical voices on the topic (Eichler and Billsberry, 2023; Schwarz, 2023), I direct the remainder of my analysis on how the fetishization of the theoretical contribution often thwarts, rather than enables, knowledge production in MOS. I focus my analysis on three mechanisms through which the “fetishization” of the theoretical contribution is detrimental for knowledge production ¹ : (1) unnecessary proliferation of theoretical constructs, (2) building theory upon theory rather than empirical validation, and (3) developing theory for theory’s sake. I animate my critique of how the theoretical contribution has been posited in MOS with tangible examples from the field.

The proliferation of theoretical constructs, or putting old wine into new bottles

The pressures to generate a novel and a substantial theoretical contribution has led some scholars to invent nomenclature to describe an organizational phenomenon that has already been identified and substantively explained by an existing concept. Scholars who adopt this approach engage in construct proliferation, wherein they coin terms which are not meaningfully different from one that is already available in the extant literature. While rhetorical techniques are used to justify the new term, once it is subjected to close scrutiny, it becomes obvious that it has little analytical distinction that demarcates it from an existing idea.

To animate this observation, let us consider the proliferation of theoretical concepts related to one aspect of institutional theory. More than 30 years ago, institutional theorists recognized that organizations are not merely passive entities within their organizational field; that they do, in fact, act upon or respond to institutional pressures. The writings of DiMaggio (1988) and Oliver (1991) were instrumental in conceptualizing this phenomenon. Specifically, these early institutional theorists described an organization’s aptitude to respond to institutional pressures, borrowing from the sociological literature that preceded it, as agency. As the number of students studying institutional theory has grown exponentially over the last few decades—to such an extent that it has unequivocally become the dominant perspective through which to analyze macro-organizational processes (Suddaby, 2010a)—so too has the number of theoretical concepts attempting to capture the idea of agency. Institutional work and institutional entrepreneurship are among the concepts that have emerged, rather needlessly, in reincarnated form over the last 25 years. In describing precisely what agency did decades earlier, one scholar observes that, at least in the case of institutional work, it rearticulated the dualism between the individual and the institution upon which the original concept of agency pivoted (Willmott, 2011a).

The proliferation of theoretical concepts often lacks the construct clarity necessary for such ideas to be either distinguished from others or empirically operationalized (Suddaby, 2010b). Our discipline’s current predicament of putting the proverbial old wine into new bottles is the unfortunate outcome of imposing onto researchers in MOS, the uncompromising demand for a novel and a substantial theoretical contribution for the work to stand any reasonable chance of publication.

Building theory upon theory, or why we need more empirical validation

Another unintended outcome of the discipline’s obsession with the theoretical contribution is theory being built upon theory. While this may be acceptable for cases of strictly philosophical engagements, when researchers aim to make sense of or otherwise explain an aspect of social reality, it is important to first empirically validate a theoretical contribution before proceeding to use it as the basis for developing more theory. Empirical validation affirms or rejects whether the theoretical contribution has relevance for practice or is sound. Without it, scholars are left to only assume its relevance to practice. The scholarly pressures to carve out a theoretical contribution has led scholars to predicate their theorizing upon, what are all too often, unsubstantiated theories. In sum, theory building has outpaced the field’s capacity to subject theoretical contributions to empirical inquiry.

This is evident in the evolution of the theoretical idea of critical performativity. After the concept was introduced to MOS by Spicer, Alvesson, and Karreman (2009), it quickly gained currency among scholars in the field (e.g. Leca et al., 2014; Paranque and Willmott, 2014). It called on critical management studies (CMS) scholars to pursue enlightened consultancy in an effort to intervene in management discourse and practice and, thereby, pursue micro-emancipations. The tacit assumption made by this position is that MOS research lacks relevance to practice and, therefore, new modalities to scholarly research is needed. With little empirical evidence to substantiate the theoretical idea, scholars embraced critical performativity as a way to inform, enrich, and (re-)theorize about myriad organizational phenomena. One research domain that especially “benefited” from theoretical extensions from engagements with critical performativity was critical leadership studies (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012). However, when scholars sought to empirically operationalize critical performativity in this domain of research, the concept quickly fell apart; suggesting that the lofty promises its authors originally promised were significantly overstated (for a detailed critique, see Cabantous et al., 2016). For instance, when researchers conducted a qualitative study with critical leadership scholars, they found that critical performativity held little in the way of analytical utility (Butler et al., 2018). ²

This example illustrates: (1) the risks of producing knowledge that relies on theory being foregrounded upon unsubstantiated theories, and (2) an unintended consequence of building theory in the absence of empirical evidence. It exemplifies that, if we are to lend credence to my critique of the theoretical contribution described in this article, our understanding of certain organizational phenomena (e.g. critical performativity) may be in a state of regression rather than advancement.

Without purpose, or developing theory for theory’s sake

The fetishization of the theoretical contribution compels scholars to develop theory for theory’s sake and not necessarily because it provides the necessary mechanism through which to explain the organizational practice being studied. As I read articles published in highly regarded journals in other social science disciplines, I am increasingly convinced that the fetishization of the theoretical contribution is idiosyncratic to—or, at the very least, it is relatively more pronounced in—MOS than in other fields.

There are numerous examples substantiating this position. Studying social and economic vulnerabilities of women in the Global South, Millar (2014) and Zulfiqar (2017) have independently examined how the blunt instruments of neoliberalism intensify the precarious conditions of women’s lives. They each use theory only to the extent that the gendered precariousness revealed in their empirical data could be made sense of. There is little effort to deliver a theoretical contribution as would have been required had they submitted their studies to an MOS journal. Yet, without the stubborn demand for a theoretical contribution, they each found success in placing their work in high quality social science journals outside of MOS and, thereby, permitted them to circulate important arguments about some of processes through which neoliberalism is manifesting in shaping local and material realities in emerging markets. They confirm theoretical insights that are well-rehearsed and have long appeared in the extant literature. These studies are in sharp contrast to a recent editorial authored by Morris and colleagues in Academy of Management Review. In the editorial, the authors proffer advice on how to theorize from emerging markets. While it is commendable that they begin their argument with some recognition of the idiosyncrasies inherent in emerging market contexts that render generalizability as something that is all but impossible to deliver, their advice ultimately reverts back to the conventional form of theory-building found in American MOS journals. Indeed, suggesting that authors should take either “the outside in” or “the inside out” approach to developing a theoretical contribution (Morris et al., 2023: 3), there prevails an overarching advocacy for the formulaic theorizing routinely published in such outlets. ³ While claiming that emerging markets represent sites of opportunity from which insights can be derive, they still advise authors to “get a sense of the types of theorizing and approaches to theorizing that can fit in AMR. . .it is important to read articles that have been published in [AMR]” (Morris et al., 2023: 7). As such, unlike Millar and Zulfiqar’s empirical work, which truly retained the conditions of lives in emerging markets at the crux of their scholarly contribution, Morris and colleagues’ contention is to use emerging markets only to the extent that it can provision for formulaic and model theorizing.

To further animate this point, I will share a recent incident encountered by a close friend and colleague. My colleague—someone not trained in MOS but now works in a business school—recently submitted a manuscript to a highly ranked journal in the discipline. The manuscript was desk rejected and the action editor, a highly regarded CMS scholar, conveyed that the study did not theoretically advance the extant literature. My colleague shared both the editorial decision letter and the manuscript with me. During a conversation we shared, I expressed to them that although the manuscript was beautifully crafted (which it was!), the study neatly executed, and the findings revelatory, they did not engage in the “theoretical summersaults” necessary to have it stand a reasonable chance at successfully navigating the review process at the MOS journal in question. An excellent study that is bereft of a substantial theoretical contribution is simply not good enough to merit publication. I advised them (based on my own experiences as both an author and an editor at similar journals) that they can take the same study, keep the methods and findings section virtually as is, but integrate a fancy theoretical framing and the manuscript would be received quite differently—not necessarily assuring publication but it would certainly be taken far more seriously than it had been. This anecdote highlights how the gatekeepers at MOS journals have tacitly decided that should a manuscript not engage in complex—and, often, unnecessarily convoluted—theorizing it does not merit publication; and, indeed, offers the sufficient grounds for desk rejection as was the case of my colleague.

Final thoughts

Over a decade ago, Willmott (2011b) published a highly-cited article in this journal in which he criticized the codification of journal quality lists in business schools. Willmott invoked tropes of “fetishism” and “perversion” to describe the problematic implications that such journal lists have on knowledge production. Much of Willmott’s characterization can be reasonably extended to our discipline’s obsession with the theoretical contribution. This is certainly not to say that there is no role for theoretical contribution in MOS scholarship—there absolutely is! However, when we become obsessed with it—when editors and reviewers will not entertain a manuscript that does not explicitly offer what they consider as a novel and a substantial one—it may pose some unintended but salient consequences on knowledge production. We ought to minimally accept the fact that while a contribution to knowledge production should serve as the fundamental basis for publication consideration, “a contribution to knowledge is not necessarily [meant to be] a theoretical contribution” (Ågerfalk, 2014: 593).

In writing this essay, I reviewed some of my own editorial decision letters that I have sent to authors rejecting their manuscripts at journals where I hold, or have held, senior editorial appointments. In virtually every instance in which I rejected a manuscript, my letter included a well recited statement along the lines of: “Unfortunately, I fail to see the meaningful theoretical contribution made in this study.” Anecdotally, this speaks to not only of my own complicity in reifying the very concern I have sought to problematize in this essay, but just how institutionalized the expectation for a formulaic theoretical contribution has become. As Schwarz (2023) illustratively puts it, citing Marx: “The problem with [MOS] scholarship today is that theory weighs heavily, ‘like a nightmare on the brains of the living.’”

As Organization enters its fourth decade of publication, scholars invested in the continued success of the journal and, concomitantly, the critical and the reflexive ethos that it fosters, must ask: Is the theoretical contribution a means to an end or has it become an end in and of itself? I leave this as an open question—something for us as a community to consider, debate, and resolve. There are a few examples of articles appearing in this journal that have refused to acquiesce to the pressures to deliver the type of theoretical contribution being critiqued in this article but have found publication success (e.g. Butler and Spoelstra, 2023; Segarra and Prasad, 2020; Zulfiqar, 2019). Nonetheless, these remain exceptions to the rule rather than the norm. My hope remains, however, that by the time the journal celebrates its diamond jubilee—another 30 years from now—the academicians who represent MOS have thought through the implications to knowledge production that our current obsession with the theoretical contribution poses; and, have made changes to publishing expectations that are necessary for cultivating a healthy and a regenerative scholarly community.