Summary What Theory is Not
Robert I. Sutton; Barry M. Staw
This essay describes difference between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is
little agreement about what constitutes strong verses weak theory in the social sciences, but there is
more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis are not theory. In this essay
the five elements of theory will be explained.
Sometimes a paper is not published because it contains inadequate theory. This paper identifies some of
the common reasons why papers are viewed as having weak theory.
Authors who wish to write strong theory might start by reading the diverse literature that seeks to
define theory and distinguish weak from strong theory. Unfortunately, the literature on theory building
can leave a reader more rather less confused about how to write a paper that contains strong theory.
Lack of consensus on exactly what theory is may explain why it is so difficult to develop strong theory.
Theorists face also little consensus about which theoretical perspectives are best suited for describing
organizations. Theory is also a particular conceptual taste, therefor strong theory can be rejected as
well.
Parts of an article that are not theory
1. References are not theory
Referencing to theory developed prior is in itself not theory. It can become theory if a theorist explicates
the causal logic they contain. References are sometimes used to hide the absence of theory. Authors
need to explicate which concepts and causal arguments are adopted from cited sources and how they
are linked to the theory being developed or tested. A good argument should maintain a logical flow in
the sentence. There should be no need for the reader to know the cited work.
2. Data are not theory
Much of organizational theory is based on data. Empirical evidence plays an important role in confirming
revising or discrediting existing theory and in guiding the development of new theory. Data describe
which empirical patters were observed and theory explains why empirical patters were observed or are
expected to be observed. Empirical results can certainly provide useful support for a theory, but they
should not be construed as theory themselves. Quotes from informants or detailed observations may
get a bit closer to the underlying causal forces, but qualitative evidence, by itself, cannot convey causal
arguments that are abstract and simple enough to be applied to other settings. Causal arguments to
explain why persistent finding have been observed must be developed.
3. Lists of variables or constructs are not theory
Lists of variables and their definitions are important parts of theory but do not, alone, constitute theory.
Theory must explain why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected. Sometimes the
list of variables represents a logical attempt to cover all or most of the determinants of a given outcome
or process. Such lists may be useful catalogues of variable, but they do not constitute theory. The key
issue is why a particular set of variables are expected to be strong predictors.
Robert I. Sutton; Barry M. Staw
This essay describes difference between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is
little agreement about what constitutes strong verses weak theory in the social sciences, but there is
more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis are not theory. In this essay
the five elements of theory will be explained.
Sometimes a paper is not published because it contains inadequate theory. This paper identifies some of
the common reasons why papers are viewed as having weak theory.
Authors who wish to write strong theory might start by reading the diverse literature that seeks to
define theory and distinguish weak from strong theory. Unfortunately, the literature on theory building
can leave a reader more rather less confused about how to write a paper that contains strong theory.
Lack of consensus on exactly what theory is may explain why it is so difficult to develop strong theory.
Theorists face also little consensus about which theoretical perspectives are best suited for describing
organizations. Theory is also a particular conceptual taste, therefor strong theory can be rejected as
well.
Parts of an article that are not theory
1. References are not theory
Referencing to theory developed prior is in itself not theory. It can become theory if a theorist explicates
the causal logic they contain. References are sometimes used to hide the absence of theory. Authors
need to explicate which concepts and causal arguments are adopted from cited sources and how they
are linked to the theory being developed or tested. A good argument should maintain a logical flow in
the sentence. There should be no need for the reader to know the cited work.
2. Data are not theory
Much of organizational theory is based on data. Empirical evidence plays an important role in confirming
revising or discrediting existing theory and in guiding the development of new theory. Data describe
which empirical patters were observed and theory explains why empirical patters were observed or are
expected to be observed. Empirical results can certainly provide useful support for a theory, but they
should not be construed as theory themselves. Quotes from informants or detailed observations may
get a bit closer to the underlying causal forces, but qualitative evidence, by itself, cannot convey causal
arguments that are abstract and simple enough to be applied to other settings. Causal arguments to
explain why persistent finding have been observed must be developed.
3. Lists of variables or constructs are not theory
Lists of variables and their definitions are important parts of theory but do not, alone, constitute theory.
Theory must explain why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected. Sometimes the
list of variables represents a logical attempt to cover all or most of the determinants of a given outcome
or process. Such lists may be useful catalogues of variable, but they do not constitute theory. The key
issue is why a particular set of variables are expected to be strong predictors.
