Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This special issue seeks to enlarge scholars’ understanding of the different ways that organization science uses theory to produce and disseminate knowledge. It brings the discussion about what theory is and does to the level of the profession as opposed to the paper. Understanding why our profession has theory in the first place to should help scholars avoid some of the unproductive debates about the use of theory within papers. More importantly, it should help scholars produce theories that can solidify rather than destabilize our corpus of knowledge - the basis for our professional authority - without limiting conceptual advancement and innovation. Developing theory that fits with how our profession produces and disseminates knowledge should improve its chances of publication, but more importantly this should improve a paper's chances of being cited and its chances of generating knowledge that can truly be useful and usable to scholars and practitioners. The special issue should thus be a valuable resource for scholars as they produce and review theory, and should lead to a more integrated and coherent science of organizational psychology.

Keywords

theory development philosophy of science programmatic theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguinis

Cronin

M. A.

(2022). It’s the theory, stupid. Organizational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221080629

Aguinis

Ramani

R. S.

Alabduljader

(2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011

Almaatouq

Griffiths

T. L.

Suchow

J. W.

Whiting

M. E.

Evans

Watts

D. J.

(2024). Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: Integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002874

Antonakis

(2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006

Bacharach

S. B.

(1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/258555

Bartunek

J. M.

Lei

C. Y.

(2023). Creating theory that is generative for scholarship and practice. Organizational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231207001

Bendersky

McGinn

K. L.

(2010). Perspective—open to negotiation: Phenomenological assumptions and knowledge dissemination. Organization Science, 21(3), 781–797. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0487

Branzei

Cohen

S. K.

Bocken

Pascucci

(n.d.). AMD Special Research Spotlight: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations.

Brett

J. M.

Shapiro

D. L.

Lytle

A. L.

(1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/257081

10.

Byron

Thatcher

S. M.

(2016). Editors’ comments:“What I know now that I wish I knew then”—Teaching theory and theory building. Academy of Management Briarcliff.

11.

Carton

A. M.

(2025). The Six Dimensions of Strong Theory. Organization Science.

12.

Corley

K. G.

Gioia

D. A.

(2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

13.

Cornelissen

Höllerer

M. A.

Seidl

(2021). What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020328

14.

Cronin

M. A.

Bendersky

(2012). The supply chain for producing quality organizational knowledge. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611424770

15.

Cronin

M. A.

Galvin

B. M.

George

Gruber

Lindebaum

Markman

G. D.

Miller

C. C.

Rose

E. L.

Thatcher

S. M.

Wood

G. T.

(2025). From a portfolio of journals to a system of knowledge production. Academy of Management Annals, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2024.0337

16.

Cronin

M. A.

George

(2020). The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507

17.

Cronin

M. A.

Loewenstein

(2018). The Craft of Creativity. Stanford University Press.

18.

Cronin

M. A.

Stouten

van Knippenberg

(2021). The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0294

19.

Davis

G. F.

(2015). Editorial essay: What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215585725

20.

Edmondson

A. C.

McManus

S. E.

(2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586086

21.

Edwards

J. R.

(2010). Reconsidering theoretical progress in organizational and management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110380468

22.

Ferris

G. R.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Buckley

M. R.

(2012). Theory in the organizational sciences: How will we know it when we see it?Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611423696

23.

George

Cronin

M. A.

(2024). Writing for the reader. Academy of Management Annals, 18(1), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0289

24.

Gobet

Lane

P. C.

Croker

Cheng

P. C.

Jones

Oliver

Pine

J. M.

(2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01662-4

25.

Greenwald

A. G.

Pratkanis

A. R.

(1988). On the use of” theory” and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95(4), 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.575

26.

Greenwood

(1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2(3), 45–55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23707630

27.

Hambrick

D. C.

(2007). The field of management ‘s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166119

28.

Heath

Sitkin

S. B.

(2001). Big-B versus big-O: What is organizational about organizational behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.77

29.

Hernandez

Haack

(2023). Theorizing for positive impact. Academy of Management Review, 48(3), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0180

30.

Hillman

(2011). Editor’s comments: What is the future of theory? Academy of Management Briarcliff.

31.

Johns

(2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687

32.

Kilduff

O’Sullivan

(2024). Where’s the theory contribution? An answer in four parts. Organizational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241233739

33.

Kozlowski

S. W.

(2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614533586

34.

Kozlowski

S. W.

(2022). The data revolution and the interplay between theory and data. In Data, methods and theory in the organizational sciences. (pp. 206–240). Routledge.

35.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Grand

Braun

Kuljanin

Chao

G. T.

(n.d.). Advancing Organizational Science: Construct and Process Theorizing, Layers of Theoretical Explanation, and Implications for Causality and Intervention. Organizational Psychology Review.

36.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2020). Building a theory by induction: The example of goal setting theory. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3–4), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620921931

37.

Luciano

M. M.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2018). Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1065–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315601184

38.

Makadok

Burton

Barney

(2018). A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1530–1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2789

39.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2016). The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2114

40.

McKinley

(2010). Organizational theory development: Displacement of ends? Organization Studies, 31(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609347055

41.

Merton

R. K.

(1949). On sociological theories of the middle range [1949]. na.

42.

National Research Council. (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences.

43.

Nicolini

Pyrko

Omidvar

Spanellis

(2022). Understanding communities of practice: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 16(2), 680–718. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0330

44.

Ordóñez

L. D.

Schweitzer

M. E.

Galinsky

A. D.

Bazerman

M. H.

(2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999

45.

Popper

(2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

46.

Pratt

M. G.

Kaplan

Whittington

(2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663

47.

Rockmann

K. W.

(2022). The personal argument for making exploratory research part of your research portfolio. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(3), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2022.0160

48.

Rockmann

K. W.

(2023). Embracing an exploratory mindset: How AMD is changing the script of good science. Academy of Management Discoveries, 9(4), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2023.0284

49.

Sandberg

Alvesson

(2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151

50.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223

51.

Thatcher

S. M.

Fisher

(2021). The nuts and bolts of writing a theory paper: A practical guide to getting started. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0483

52.

Thatcher

S. M.

Pfarrer

M. D.

Devers

C. E.

(2024). Breaking news: JOM wants your theory papers. Journal of Management, 50(4), 1183–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241227422

53.

Toulmin

S. E.

(2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.

54.

Tourish

(2019). The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0255

55.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789

56.

Weinstock

Cronin

M. A.

(2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 17(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.860

57.

Whetten

D. A.

(1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/258554

Intro to the Special Issue on Theory: Theory at the Level of the Profession

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References