Introduction to Special Topic Forum: The Interplay between Theory and Method
Author(s): John Van Maanen, Jesper B. Sørensen and Terence R. Mitchell
Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 1145-1154
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159360 .
Accessed: 30/05/2014 13:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
Academy ofManagement Review
2007,Vol. 32,No. 4, 1145-1154.
TO SPECIALTOPIC FORUM
INTRODUCTION
BETWEENTHEORYAND
THE INTERPLAY
METHOD
JOHNVANMAANEN
Institute of Technology
Massachusetts
JESPERB. S0RENSEN
Stanford
University
TERENCE R. MITCHELL
University
This
issue
special
process
a variety of practical
six papers
research
that address
interact in
how theory and method
papers
explore
inevitably
of how
studies. Here we offer an overview
and management
contains
The
questions.
organization
particular
have
theory and method
that respecting
but a necessary
ofWashington
both
to date by organization
and suggest
researchers
is no easy
of theory and the primacy
of evidence
task
that characterizes
research.
practice
high-quality
been
treated
the primacy
balancing
and management
The aim of organizational
and docu
is to speculate,
research
discover,
ment, as well as to provisionally
order, explain,
social pro
observable
and predict, (presumably)
cesses and structures that characterize
behavior
In this long march,
the
of organizations.
are
the
for
and
method
matter,
ory
surely
they
tools with which we build both our representa
in and
We
offer a well-deserved
this Special
and Method
you to those who made
the Interplay
Between
Theory
we appreciate
the work
In particular,
Forum
Topic
possible.
former AMR
thank
on
and orga
editor, who both hatched
former man
this special
issue, as well Susan
Paulie,
oversight
aging editor of AMR, for her careful administrative
she gave contributors
and the guidance
and encouragement
of Art Brief,
nized
(and guest
was made
and
tragic
The process
this long process.
throughout
far more difficult by the unwelcome
longer and
visit of Hurricane
to New Orleans
and
Katrina
editors)
where
University,
then housed.
Post-Katrina
Tulane
the AMR
editorial
offices
were
was
up at the AMR
picked
in New York by Susan
Zaid and
offices at Pace
University
the current
Annemarie
Feldman,
Koory and aided
by Gail
managing
sity. We
editor
at The Pennsylvania
as well
to our reviewers
of AMR
are grateful
work
State
Univer
for the tireless
to this venture.
anonymous
expertise
they brought
critically, however, we honor the thoughtful and schol
for
achievements
of all
those who
submitted
papers
effort and
Most
arly
consideration
in this special
issue. Although
only a few
were
for publication,
all had merits
of var
selected
papers
ious kinds, and we were
and
by both the quality
impressed
of this work.
quantity
tions and understandings
of organizational
life
our reputations. Theory and method, while
and
much descriptive,
generating
prescriptive,
are often treated as
critical
literature,
and
con
ceptually
independent.
Scholars-in-training
courses
take separate
from separate
professors
in "Theory" and "Method" much as undergradu
ates
take
separate
classes
in chemistry
and
history.
is
With respect to some issues, this separation
to develop
sensible.
Articles
about
how
and
write about
processes
theory often emphasize
and strategies
of
that are relatively independent
on such dimen
methods. Theories are evaluated
sions
as
internal consistency,
logic, organiza
tion, clarity, and readability
(Klein & Zedeck,
2004). Also, as Whetten
(1989) points out, theories
are often judged in terms of their novelty, con
interest. All of these
tribution, and contemporary
criteria can be used across methods. And meth
ods, too, have their own internal logics. Rules of
observational
statistical
sampling,
recording,
assumptions,
mathematical
interviewing
techniques,
can be learned
and
inde
procedures
of theoretical content.
pendently
it is our stand
that theory and
However,
method are?or
should be?highly
interrelated
in practice. Theories without methodological
im
are
more
to
be
than
little
idle
likely
plications
1145
without thecopyright
Copyright of theAcademy ofManagement, all rightsreserved.Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted toa listserv,or otherwise transmitted
holder's express written permission. Users may print,download, or email articles forindividual use only.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1146 Academy
with minimal
import. And
empirical
speculation
can be
substance
theoretical
without
methods
in
technical sophistication
sterile, representing
isolation.
are commonplace,
observations
re
between
the relationship
theory and method
one and a source of some
a complicated
mains
if not controversy
within
and
befuddlement,
across various organizational
research commu
While
such
are not always acknowl
treatments of the theory
to suggest
continue
that
relationship
to
data
used
test,
generate meaningful
of theories or, in
form, the plausibility
nities.
Such difficulties
edged.
method
To wit, textbook
methods
in weak
strong form, the validity of theories given mod
est to severe boundary
constraints
(e.g., Blalock,
1978; Yin, 2002). As an
1969; Bryman, 1989; Dubin,
the interplay of theory and
ideal representation,
is not problematic
but follows a pre
data
scribed?almost
In conven
magical?sequence.
are
form, problems
interest to a identifiable
tional
identified
that are
of
research
community
more
research
than
one),
ques
specific
(perhaps
are posed
that rest on the
tions or hypotheses
those in the research com
theoretical resources
research
(or seek), appropriate
or
on either or both deductive
are
then
inductive logic
spelled out, qualitative
are chosen and put to
measures
or quantitative
then fol
and
work, data compilation
analysis
and
luck, plausible
(or ver
low, and, with pluck
possess
strategies based
munity
ifiable)
inferences
and conclusions
result. End of
story.
to question
this
Reflexivity need not go deep
of
the
version
idealized
and
overly simplified
theory and data. Practicing
interplay between
know both from ex
researchers
organizational
cri
and
coll?gial
readily available
perience
an
suggesting
orderly,
tique that any narrative
is rather
standard model of the research process
seems apparent
to those who
What
misleading.
out organizational
research
have
carried
can
and
is
that
method
generate
shape
projects
can
as
and
generate
shape
theory
theory, just
in
character
There is a back-and-forth
method.
and data are in
conjectures,
concepts,
one
If
of concepts
thinks
continuous
interplay.
on a conceptual
as existing
and conjectures
one,
plane and of data residing on an empirical
which
the links
the more varied
links and
the
the more promising
between
the two planes,
function of empirical
One
research.
studies,
the kind of data that can be
then, is to generate
the more
Review
of Management
October
in the theorizing process
itself, thus allow
ing a study to progress as a cognitive or sense
venture that unfolds over time (Bailyn,
making
used
& K?rre
1977; Weick,
1989; see also Alvesson
man, this issue).
in the connections
within and be
Flexibility
tween
and empirical
the conceptual
(ideas)
a
for
and
(data) planes
allowing
logic of discov
a
is
ery rather than only
logic of validation
as
a
a
is seen
if research
prerequisite
seemingly
Yet rarely are
process.
cognitive
least in print?since
discussed?at
is lengthy and uneven,
research
such matters
the flow of
is seen most
in hindsight, and, perhaps most impor
clearly
tant, is contextually
idiosyncratic, often chaotic,
and always
How we arrive at conclu
personal.
or
is difficult to pen
otherwise,
sions, insightful
norms
etrate when publication
do not favor the
in which
of results in the manner
presentation
the personal
and when
history of
they evolved
over time
unfolded
how the research
process
may be revised or forgotten as the project moves
toward its final printed version.
of (or not
often unaware
our
basic
epistemolog
encouraged
and assumptions.
ical or ontological
upbringing
or
to logical positivism
Authors who subscribe
we
In addition,
are
to articulate)
may view
things quite differently
empiricism
from those who favor hermeneutic,
interpretive
or positions
guided by postmodern
approaches
ism or critical theory. The logics, schools, and
our research
that populate
land
paradigms
are
and
sub
have
and
varied,
many
scape
they
on
and
method.
stantial
both
theory
impact
this STF brings to the table is a rather
What
of just how these funda
research
tools of varied
mental
trades?theory
across a range of concep
and method?interact
both narrow and
tual and empirical
domains,
broad
consideration
issued in the spring
In our call forpapers
"take up
that would
of 2003, we invited papers
new?
as
to
how
and
method?old
questions
broad.
helps to develop
and new?helps
trated
where
theory and
to develop
(or) how theory?old
illus
method." We
a few topical areas
this invitation with
were particularly
submissions
to think about
how
including
search constructs and variables,
and
welcome,
refine re
how explora
or limit
of theory enhance
tion and development
choices
method
(and the reverse), how formal
contrib
and/or simulation
techniques
modeling
and how inductive or
ute to theory development,
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2007
Van Maanen,
S0rensen,
and Mitchell
1147
or
constrain
research
strategies
theoretical choice and elaboration.
through its level of
Theory can drive method
its
the types of
of
articulation,
stage
analysis,
or pre
constructs itproposes,
and its descriptive
can
nature.
For
inform
scriptive
theory
example,
respect both the primacy
macy of evidence.
of configurations
opment
through the analysis
(Harrison,
(Fiss, this issue), simulation modeling
this issue), and analysis
Lin, Carroll, & Carley,
to generate
or unexpected
data
of surprising
guess,
deductive
broaden
this
& McManus,
(Edmondson
design
measures
this
&
choice
of
Klein,
(Harrison
issue),
(Kalnins, this issue). Method
issue), and samples
can help to develop
and enhance
theory devel
research
new
theoretical
this issue).
The extent
(Alvesson
insights
& K?rreman,
to which
between
the relationship
if
not con
reflection
and
method
inspires
theory
was
our
call
in
fact
is
the
that
reflected
troversy
of
with almost
answered
varying
fifty papers,
in some
but all concerned
quality and purpose
way or another with the interplay of theory and
In reading
method.
(and
through these papers
seems
it
clear to us that the tensions
beyond),
many
"the rela
the heading
in many
theory and method"
from the difficulties
found in
derive
the conceptual
and empiri
between
file under
scholars
tionship
respects
balancing
cal planes.
between
In other words, all researchers
strug
true
to
should
be
when
with
they
deciding
gle
true
to
be
should
their theory and when
they
in this STF wrestle
their data. All of the papers
in different
with
this tension and emphasize,
thoughtful ways, how
itself and can be addressed
and
this tension manifests
in concrete research
settings.
is how we think about the relation
Theorizing
in the world that oc
the elements
ships among
our
attention.
Yet the social world
research
cupy
that may
is complex and full of random noise
we are interested in (Lei
the processes
obscure
we use to perceive
the
ter, 1992). The methods
social world are imperfect as well. Ifwe pay too
or potentially avail
much attention to available
we
are
and
data,
trapped by operations,
we
no
to
is
attention
stifled. If
pay
theorizing
our
data,
theorizing will be rather too remote
In
and will occur all on the conceptual
plane.
able
the potential
either case,
interplay between
method and theory is limited. The key, then, is to
at once. Re
to serve two masters
find a way
search methods play a central role here because
so that they sufficiently
they must be designed
of theory and
the pri
THE PRIMACY OF THEORY
or understood,
nor
see
Sutton
&
Staw,
(e.g.,
their
1995, and the range of comments regarding
stand on "what theory is not"). As Weick
(1995)
could be a
points out, a theory, in principle,
Theory is not well
is it one-dimensional
defined
conjecture,
supposition,
speculation,
or model,
conception,
proposition,
hypothesis,
with those at the formal end of the spectrum
more likely to be in print. But, even in print, what
is conventionally
treated as
theory displays
in terms of range, focus, interest,
level of analysis,
sweep,
elegance,
complexity,
for next
character,
implications
presentational
in
the
collective
research
process, and so
steps
forth.
high variation
DiMaggio (1995),building on D'Andrade (1986),
theories seek to provide cover
that govern
the relationships
among
or constructs
in a highly specified
as ways of
field of study and use their methods
notes
that some
ing laws
variables
laws. Some
verifying such covering
possibly
or provoke a
seek to provide novel explanations
sort of unexpected
among knowl
enlightenment
readers by putting forth new and po
edgeable
previ
tentially useful constructs or uncovering
existing with
relationships
unsuspected
a
across
studied
domain.
consistency
in the service of such a goal defamil
Methods
ously
some
if not deconstruct
landscape,
bring new
iarize
gory
schemes
to
the
the existing
classification
fore,
and
question
conceptual
and cate
conven
theories seek
of particular
in the
and place
their methods
social processes
service
and pre
of showing
the plausibility
involved
sumed strength of the various
linkages
in the constructed analytic narrative.
In general,
of theoretical
aims,
regardless
tional domain assumptions.
Other
to provide
accounts
step-by-step
to suggest
researchers
continue
that the
many
more we underpin
our theories with empirical
observations
that more or less fit the theory, the
more convincing
such a theory is. Disconfirm
ability has long reigned as the number one cri
terion by which
theories should be judged. In
this respect, empirical
validation
(or lack of
same) is held to trump the host of other persua
to improve a theory's recep
sive tactics used
tion?its
memorable
character,
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
its parsimony,
1148
Academy
of Management
or stand-alone
its complementary
position
other
theories, its interest value to a par
among
its rhetorical style,
ticular research community,
on
see
so
and
1984; Lindblom,
Edmondson,
(e.g.,
1987; Van Maanen,
1995).
This rather questionable
leges data over theory and
assumption
rests on a
privi
rather
the re
October
Review
dards
of excellence,
competence,
and
contribu
tion.
no terribly satisfying answers
al
above.
Theorizing
posed
There are, alas,
to the dilemmas
entails
be
trade-offs and compromises
ways
tween such matters as simplicity and complex
image
by
It neglects
the impor
search methods
employed.
tance in scientific progress
(such as the devel
opment of a theory of relativity) of "denying the
and semblance,
and specificity
ity, originality
to verify or validate
and generality.
Attempts
will and usually
should be tried, of course, and
are useful for theorizing since they represent an
link between
asserted
the conceptual
and em
suitable
pirical
tween
naive
of data
data"
as
unaffected
(Leifer, 1992) and clinging
of observation
methods
What
Leifer says of sociology
research as well:
organizational
to theories until
can be found.
can be said of
"Virtually all of
as data and
is accepted
what
happens
actually
to render theories false. This combina
allowed
orientation and Popper's
falsi
tion of a passive
consequences"
fiability criterion has disastrous
itmay well
limit theo
(1992: 286). In particular,
won
it
since
intuition,
hunches,
rizing,
relegates
der, imagination,
inspiration, and
speculation,
end ofWeick's
the like (all closer to the guessing
in the
to
sessions
continuum)
theory
late-night
to worry more
tavern and
forces researchers
of data and con
the close correspondence
the
nature
of
the
than
cepts
theory being built.
The focus is more on theory as a product of
savvy than a result of a mental
methodological
or cognitive process.
about
of how theory
By stretching our understanding
and method
interact, as well as our prescrip
and data
tions for research as theory validation
as our ultimate
jury, we of course create other
as we have
studies,
Organization
problems.
is an expanding,
multidisciplinary
suggested,
field. We have built a large and somewhat
po
a variety of methods,
rous tent within which
schools of thought
theories, and epistemological
coexist (and, perhaps,
coevolve).
Judging this as
a virtue or vice depends,
in part, on how deeply
research
committed one is to a particular
style
in the
and, in part, on how one views "progress"
are always
resources
field. Since
limited,
as to which
choices must be made
(and how)
or cut back.
lines of research will be extended
are obscure, but
for such choices
The grounds
veri
the empirical
surely one of them concerns
fication a particular
program
theory-building
is not a democracy,
research
Since
generates.
nor should
it be (Levett & Gross,
1994), the prob
to encourage
and facilitate new, rich,
stan
sustaining
interesting
theory while
lem is how
and
tional
planes.
concepts
research
But
and
and
if the correspondence
be
is loose in organiza
data
the worlds we study are
the value
open rather than closed,
cannot be reduced
to its claimed
of a theory
verification
& Cicourel,
1981;
1976; Knorr-Cetina
(Gergen,
the point of theorizing,
Weick,
1989). Hence,
is not sim
when viewed as a cognitive process,
but, rather,
knowledge
ply to produce validated
to suggest plausible
connections
and relation
not
that
have
been
In this
yet
ships
glimpsed.
is
then
the
sense, building
interesting
theory
name
of the game,
for our field in this
and,
moment of time, we believe
is
such an emphasis
appropriate.
THE PRIMACY OF EVIDENCE
to this argument can be seen
question: Where do interest
do they
and how? How
arise,
ing theories
to
order and
from methods
emerge
designed
tame empirical
be
observations,
they con
as
eth
structed and compiled
survey materials,
fieldnotes,
trials, second
laboratory
nographic
results? How do we
ary data sets, or simulation
The counterpoint
by asking a simple
sort out helpful
from not so
theoretical
leads
to
produce, and,
theory is difficult
helpful? Good
unlike pornography, we may not even recognize
itwhen we see it.Moreover,
good theory seems
the result of many
thought
likely to be more
and
trails, modest
approximations
speculations,
occur
than a bold stroke or "ah-ha" epiphany
at
blinklike
and
forth
back
ring
speed. Moving
to
intuition
from data-based
resting
theorizing
on experience,
habits ofmind, and research con
an
inter
important role in generating
one
can
as
what
does
esting theory,
absorbing
literature in the field and work
of the scholarly
tethered
ing through conjectures without being
text plays
to data.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2007
Van Maanen,
S0iensen,
the best answer we currently have to
Perhaps
was
the problems
of discovery
provided
by
Charles
Sanders
Peirce
(1995/1903), who argued
rea
rests primarily on abductive
that discovery
a
foundation
for inquiry, abduction
an
unmet
and works
begins
expectation
to invent a plausible
backward
world or a theory
that would make
the surprise meaningful.
As
Kilduff (2006) recently advocated,
good
theory
comes
in the
from engagement
with problems
soning.
As
with
in the literature. In this sense,
world, not gaps
to the empirical
abduction
primacy
assigns
in
the
service
but
of
world,
theorizing. Like the
dog that did not bark in the fictional world of
are clues
Sherlock Holmes, unmet expectations
that motivate
for this
theorizing, and, precisely
and embraced
reason, they are to be welcomed
by
researchers.
and
too, the interplay of observational
in
work
the
abduction.
From
conceptual
frag
ments
of what we glimpse
of the empirical
come theories that
world
that can be observed
cannot be observed?at
least directly. Peirce ex
Note,
less a logic than a path of
in
which
follow
reasoning
conjectures
unmet
uncovered
surprises.
Discrepancies
by
can be analyzed
in terms of their
expectations
location (where did it happen),
timing (when did
abduction
plained
critical
as
it happen),
(how often does
this hap
frequency
(how important is this dis
pen), and magnitude
for the
crepancy). Some conjectures may account
surprise better than others, and, thus, they push
inquiry forward, leading over time tomore sur
and induction
prises and conjectures. Deduction
as
follow and complement
abduction
logics
more suitable
for the always
imperfect testing of
theories (e.g., see Ketner, 1995).
plausible
It is important to note, however,
that abduc
tion is a continuous
in all
process,
taking place
of the research
process.
pro
phases
Analysis
con
ceeds by the continuous
between
interplay
can occur at the be
cepts and data. Surprises
or end of a research process.
ginning, middle,
First and second drafts, for example,
may be
more valuable
for generating
unmet expecta
to light unseen puzzles
tions and bringing
than
for tidying up, presenting,
and
sible theory and its empirical
defending
plau
support. Coding
transform data used forone
in ways
that guide and re
and classifying may
to another
purpose
flect the evolving concepts
esting
turns
theory in Davis's
on
transformations,
of the analyst.
(1971) now classic
such
as
what
Inter
view
was
and Mitchell
1149
once
turns
variable
thought to be a dependent
out to be?at
least for the moment?an
indepen
once
dent one, or what was
thought to be a
construct
turns out to be?for
homogeneous
now?a
one. What makes
rather heterogeneous
for interesting scholarly work is the discontinu
some (but not all) of the theoretical
ity between
of the researcher and the research
assumptions
and some (but not all) of the discov
audience
ered and
claimed
facts of the matter.
for method
the role
given
implications
to
in
are nu
abduction
research
appears
play
out.
but
three stand
merous,
First, the data re
to
work with should be suffi
searchers
have
The
rich, and complex such that the
ciently detailed,
and causal
processes
organizing
conjectures
can be approached
as to why
and explained
Second,
plausible.
by generating
are
for
their
explanations
findings, researchers
forced to link their results
to the conceptual
and, by so doing, can then move back
plane
to try to substantiate
these post hoc inter
again
for
up consequences
pretations
by conjuring
them (i.e., more
out
and
them
theory)
checking
the available
evidence
against
empirical
they
in hand. This is the long march.
have
Third,
what Bailyn
of oppo
(1977) calls a "principle
they appear
to be helpful in this process. The
that if you have qualitative
suggests
principle
data, count and classify what you can; if you
have quantitative
data, don't ignore its qualita
tive potential by not examining
the extremes or
not looking at data
that do not fit the general
sites" appears
picture.
It is an irony of scholarly practice
in organi
zational
research
that the process of abduction,
which likely goes on inmost ifnot all promising
is largely hidden
research projects,
from view.
at the outset, the publication
con
As mentioned
ventions currently attached
to research
journals
such as Administrative
Science Quarterly, Acad
Journal, and Organization
emy o? Management
hide the discovery process by requiring
Science
a rather strict separation
the presenta
between
tion of results and conclusions
and between
the
of theory and method. This process
presentation
is often messy,
idiosyncratic, and difficult to ar
ticulate. There are, no doubt, reasons
for these
journal policies,
along with many
disagree
ments over whether
the field is well served over
all by such conventions.
It is nonetheless
clear
that one negative
is that those
consequence
wishing
to learn the craft of research
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
are
largely
left in the dark if they try to follow how the
results of a study were sequentially
interpreted
and how these interpretations were checked out
in hand. The research
(if at all) by the data
it appear as
into
when
process,
put
print, makes
a
in which
exercise
validation
imagination,
false speculation
(fromwhich springs abductive
about
and faith-based
assumptions
reasoning),
to
sort
out
from
the
useful
able
conjectures
being
not-so-useful
no
play
role.
and now
is, of course, an old complaint
an
of
institutionalized
one, but we
something
seem not to have moved
toward much of a res
that of an infrequently
olution, beyond
pub
This
lished
confession
as
to how
one's
research
"ac
1990; Frost &
(e.g., Barley,
tually"
1967; Stablin & Frost,
1992; Hammond,
Stablin,
litera
2004). A difficulty with this rather spare
features a good deal of recounted
ture, which
are in
is that research confessionals
abduction,
as
insofar
they index
only
teresting apparently
unfolded
as if dis
it appear
work, making
are
in
rarified
research
covery
creativity
and out of reach formost of us. Rather, discovery
and creativity growing out of assigning
primacy
to empirical
should be seen as general
puzzles
well-received
and
social and cognitive
able to all.
processes
potentially
avail
THE PROBLEM OF READER RESPONSE
that the interplay
thus far argued
We have
of the re
between
theory and method demands
simul
the ability to serve two masters
searcher
to
true
and
be
both
the
power
taneously?to
to
of
the
of
ideas
and
demands
empir
elegance
ical reality. As if this does not pose enough of a
a
research also demands
successful
challenge,
recognition
and method
the consumers
al
that the interplay between
theory
occurs within a context defined by
of organizational
desire and expect
research?
and management
do audiences
Review
of Management
1150 Academy
research. What
of organization
this
How does
that is per
the character of the research
shape
some of
as noted previously,
formed? Clearly,
derive
from
of the audience
the demands
that shape
the
topics and world views
and
of theoretical
perspectives
acceptance
The popularity
of
approaches.
methodological
that sur
theories and the econometrics
agency
in this regard
round them is a good example
broader
2005;
Pfeffer, & Sutton,
(e.g., see Ferraro,
this corre
Ghoshal,
2005; Kanter,
2005). That
October
to what
so
recently to be
triumph of shareholder
capitalism
no accident.
sponds
ultimate
seemed
the
is
certainly
In addition,
read swiftly,
research audiences
and they read only a few papers carefully. Those
tomost closely are quite likely
papers attended
to reflect preexisting
interests and to draw on
of readers who can best scruti
the knowledge
a
put forth. When
more
the
audience
read,
grows
paper
will
be
and
the study's
reception
general,
concerns
dif
and
rather
shaped by perspectives
ferent from those of close, attentive, specialized
to
readers. Simplification
results, attentiveness
or empirical materi
the theoretical arguments
nize
and
judge
is widely
the claims
are more
fades, and conclusions
if they reflect
taken at face value
context of the times and
cultural
als
reading
likely to be
the current
that of the
audience.
is to say that theories are created
by
too. Even when a paper
is cleverly the
and empirically
illustrated,
orized,
carefully
that
reception will be influ
paper's
supported,
con
the author's
enced by matters
far beyond
This
readers
in the sociology
of science demon
trol. Studies
strate the importance
of a theory's reception
and readers
readers and how authors
among
one
indi
another both directly and
influence
1989; Collins & Pinch, 1982;
rectly (e.g., Ashmore,
it
readers,
Law, 2004; Merton,
1973). General
and attend
look most for enlightenment
seems,
histor
little, if at all, to the largely unspecified
ical context of the theory put forth or of the
readers
whose
involved.
methods
Coll?gial
that of the author will
work might complement
attend more carefully to the work but only inso
far as it provides
grist for their own research
in the
readers who participate
mills. Specialized
research domain
targeted by the author will no
doubt
read most
(and skeptically),
carefully
since their own theories and methods
may be
put to test by the author.
Such matters are hardly startling, but they do
scientific
jour
suggest why highly specialized
to the uninitiated
and
nals seem so unfriendly
arcane
so full of congealed
neolo
sentences,
Yet
and mind-numbing
qualifications.
gisms,
are
Those
that
do
lives.
have
few papers
long
their
have
those
that
somehow
escaped
usually
trav
and have
audiences
intended specialized
to the presup
eled by virtue of their resonance
of readers not well grounded
positions
matter
addressed
subject
by the author.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in the
2007
Van Maanen,
There is, of course, little we can do about this
as we go about putting our research into print. It
as well. Indeed, others mak
is a bit paradoxical
we did not
for purposes
ing use of our work
or intend is something we must sim
anticipate
to
live with. Ifwe are lucky, we might,
learn
ply
in fact, learn something about our methodolog
ical and
choices
theoretical
those readers who
from the reactions
of
carry quite different interests
from our own but nonetheless
and perspectives
have been taken by some aspect of our work.
The issue here is that both theory and method
not only are constructed and represented
by an
but are reconstructed
after they are written. Thus,
author
and rerepresented
our writings can?
when the conjunction of the planets
presumably
on a life of their own. DiMaggio
is just so?take
theories
(1995) points out how even half-baked
on who
can turn out better or worse depending
takes them up at a later stage. If one is fortunate
to say something
that attracts the favor
enough
able attention of Karl Weick,
JimMarch, or Dick
their work
Scott (or, gulp, Malcolm
Gladwell),
to
in
is
fair well.
the
field)
(and standing
likely
To underestimate
the value of postpublication
construction
and method
assessment
theory
is
a
to deny just how much
in
research
is,
fact,
matter occurring
and cooperative
collaborative
authors and readers. In this sense, the
is a collective
interplay of theory and method
that extends well beyond
any single
process
research project.
between
PAPERS IN THE SPECIAL TOPIC FORUM
in mind, we now
these considerations
six
in
the
contained
introduce
papers
quickly
our
issue. Each
this special
pushes
thinking
about the interplay between
theory and method
forward in important ways. A summary of each
is presented
in Table
1.We should note
paper
cut across professional
that the papers
circles
With
and interest groups of the Academy
of Manage
ment and offer something of value across vari
ous levels of analysis,
theoretical
contrasting
interests,
differing methodological
predilec
domains.
In some
tions, and distinct substantive
new
are
to
methods
deal with
papers
proposed
familiar problems.
In other papers new
are
theoretical approaches
that could
suggested
extend an existing
research
line in promising
ways. All mix an interest in both theory and
old and
method
and manage
to open
up
the back-and
and Mitchell
S0iensen,
1151
forth features of the research process
that are
too often kept out of sight.
in reach of our
is the broadest
The first paper
set. Amy Edmondson
take
and Stacy McManus
that high-quality
implicit maxim
in organization
is pro
studies
there is an appropriate
fitbetween
up the largely
field research
duced
when
theory and method.
They point out, however,
to
that little explicit attention has been given
a
what
fit.
reasonable
just
might represent
They
then introduce a useful contingency
framework
prior work in a research area to the
connecting
a
new research project, paying partic
of
design
or
to when and why qualitative
ular attention
data
(or both) might be sought.
qualitative
Peer Fiss
for fitwith
follows this concern
paper
a
that much of the research on
is limited by a mis
configuration
and
method.
To overcome
theory
suggesting
organizational
match between
this knotty problem, he offers set-theoretic meth
of
that permit the algebraic
manipulation
a
constitute
attributes
that
par
proposed
might
as a methodological
ticular configuration
alter
or variable
native to conventional
correlational
ods
and he argues
that such methods
approaches,
allow
for the investigation
of equifinality
and
limited diversity. Such methods are open to both
and ordinal data and provide a way
categorical
to direct verbal statements
into logical catego
can tease out
ries that, when properly analyzed,
and can
complex cause-and-effect
relationships
generate new insights for organizational
theory
and strategy researchers.
The
third paper,
Harrison
and
by David
research
Klein, takes up management
concerned with diversity. The authors begin by
literature
noting that reviews of the diversity
reveal few clear or consistent
findings and ask
some
While
conclude
from the weak
might
why.
as
evidence
that diversity should be abandoned
a theoretical construct, these authors argue
in
Katherine
stead
that diversity
Theory development,
fused by mismatched
a construct.
is too general
thus, is retarded and con
and
operationalizations
Harrison
and
Klein
designs.
usefully
three distinctive
among
distinguish
types of dif
ference-based
subconstructs
of diversity?
research
variety, and disparity. They then de
more
for building
precise
of diversity
type, measure
conceptualizations
separation,
velop
guidelines
ment
and theory tests.
techniques,
is the topic Richard Har
Simulation modeling
rison, Zhiang Lin, Glenn Carroll, and Kathleen
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1152
of Management
Academy
Review
October
TABLE 1
in the Special
of Articles
Summary
Edmondson
&
McManus
Fiss
Core
"Methodological
Fit
Management
Research"
Field
in
to
the Difference?
or Disparity
Variety,
in Organizations"
"Simulation
&
Carroll,
alter
Selection
consistent
guide
the method
and
Development:
of
Implications
emerged
diversity
in
does
on
research
&
"Constructing
and
research?
selection
sample
K?rreman
Empirical
Theory
of the
advantages
(and
problem)
To
theory
reduce
misinter
pretation
and
Development"
develop
open
To
up
theory
novel
Roughly
equal
emphasis
of
Mostly
theory
Mostly
method
inappropriate
theoretical
studies
established
(construct
computational
in organi
modeling
zational
studies
conclusions
do we
theory
refinement)
a broad
description
special
development?
How
Mostly
that
diversity
To provide
Select
Mystery:
in
Matters
method
the
recognize
varied
forms of
Abilities to
Alvesson
Mostly
organizational
Varying
Appropriately
New Ventures"
emphasis
of studying
To develop
guide
lines for diversity
simulation
influence
equal
to
a new
introduce
method
organizations?
How
Roughly
or
configuration
findings
in research
can
some
rules
To
theory
in research
ganizational
Theory
Firms'
the
between
management
"Sample
on Theory
Method
To provide
decision
contribute
modeling
most effectively
to or
and Management
Research"
Kalnins
Theory and Method
choices
ological
made
by
researchers
configuration?
so few
Why have
Where
Modeling
in Organizational
Carley
Between
of Paper
Purpose
on organizational
Constructs
Diversity
As Separation,
Lin,
do we
and method
Configurations"
Harrison,
"methodological
and how could
mismatch
Organizational
"What's
does
fit"mean,
How
"A Set-Theoretic
& Klein
What
Addressed
Questions
to a
it be applied
research
project?
Approach
Harrison
on the Interplay
Forum
Emphasis
Paper Title
Authors
Topic
to
theorizing?
in
where
is critical
sampling
show how "data"
can
be used
to
problematize
established
theoretical
understandings
and move
toward
new
in the fourth paper. The point of
con
is
the altogether
plausible
departure
tention that management
and organization
the
Carley
examine
here
ory is becoming
increasingly
complex and that
a
to
offers
simulation
methodology
modeling
on
In
this
advance
systems.
complex
theory
sense theory development
is hampered
by limi
our
to
social
observe
tations in
complex
ability
in the empirical world. The authors'
processes
of
aim is to promote a broader
understanding
and to illustrate the poten
simulation modeling
in several
itmight well make
tial contributions
fields. In so doing they pay
research
developing
special
knowledge
attention
epistemol?gica!
to the attractions
and special
are
to
that
attached
problems
and, along
modeling
computational
a
to
of
recent
number
point
examples
in organizational
research.
the way,
of its use
in the STF, Arturs Kalnins
In the fifth paper
examines
the role sample
selection plays in de
He
way of ex
points out?by
theory.
veloping
to in
firm-level
decisions
chosen
from
amples
new
or
in
vest
ventures
the
products?that
is always
the result of some
observed
sample
the researcher may or may not
selection process
to the point, the sam
be fully aware
of. More
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2007
Van Maanen,
S0iensen,
itself may generate
process
empirical
consistent
with a theoretical explana
findings
tion that may, in fact, play no causal
role, or it
cancel
out
that are
may
empirical
relationships
consistent with a causal process proposed
by a
Rather
than
the
theory.
construing
sample selec
tion issue as a narrow methodological
question
pling
of parameter
estimates,
involving the accuracy
Kalnins
shows how empirical
data can be an
unreliable
and
guide for both theory validation
theory generation.
The last paper, by
K?rreman,
represents
across
searchers
the
trum to actively
seek
Mats Alvesson
a challenging
and
call
Dan
for re
spec
theory and method
and create surprise and
in their work as a way of opening
mystery
up
established
the
theory. These authors are also
most explicit about how abduction
might be fur
thered if researchers
searched
systematically
for deviations
in what
is to be expected
in par
ticular empirical
contexts given
the available
and Mitchell
in our field remains
resolved
a matter
of rethinking established
looking to cases where the
theory by specifically
theory will not hold. Data are then more useful
as a way tomove between
and em
conceptual
than as a resource
to be trotted
pirical planes
out solely for verification purposes.
fields
(and
and
so
ganizational
subfields)
our understanding
of the research pro
deepen
cess viewed
There are both general
broadly.
and specific
for students of orga
implications
nizational
culture,
strategy,
design,
perfor
mance,
and
growth, complexity,
learning, as
well as some sharp insights into how empiri
cally grounded middle-range
theorizing can be
The
could
be
slotted into sub
improved.
papers
stantive
fields as disparate
as firm-level deci
sion making
and gender
studies.
Temporally,
the papers collectively
consider theory from con
to challenge
and
ception to growth to maturity
or reinvigoration
decline
through evidentiary
based doubt and discovery.
This said, there is still a good deal to ponder.
What
constitutes good, useful, or worthy theory
be
and
interests may
all
topical
the
field
itself will remain,
time,
and work will go on much as before as long as
some audience
to look toward us to
continues
assumptions,
over
change
and explanations
of or
is unlikely to change.
provide representations
life. This
ganizational
REFERENCES
M.
Ashmore,
1989. The
scientific
reflexive
knowledge.
thesis: Writing
Chicago:
Press.
University
of
sociology
of Chicago
as a cognitive
Bailyn, L. 1977. Research
process:
Implications
for data analysis.
and Quantity,
11: 97-117.
Quality
of imaging: Notes
Barley, S. R. 1990. Images
tudinal
fieldwork. Organization
Science,
H. M.
1969. Theory
construction.
A.
Bryman,
1989. fiesearch
Park, CA:
Newbury
on doing
longi
1: 220-247.
Cliffs,
Englewood
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
The papers
that follow provide a number of
theoretical
and methodological
suggestions
across a wide variety of management
and or
cannot
derstood,
and failure in hand to warrant much more than
blind guesses
as to its paths. And while we
know readers surely add to the
theorizing pro
cess, how, precisely,
in what
they do so and
fashion are far from clear. Much
remains
to be
done if the organizational
research process
is to
be further deconstructed
in order to be recon
structed along
to all
improved lines. The upside
our theories, methods,
this is that while
facts,
Blalock,
SOME FINALWORDS
in the air and
up
validation
alone.
through empirical
but the forms
may rely on abduction,
can take are not well un
reasoning
and we have too few cases of success
Discovery
abductive
that coming up with new
theory. They argue
ideas and theoretical
leads is less an inductive
matter (as some grounded
theorists might have
it) and more
1153
in organization
method
studies.
Sage.
H. M., & Pinch, T. 1982. Frames
Collins,
social
construction
of extraordinary
Paul.
Kegan
of meaning:
The
science.
London:
R. 1986. Three
scientific world
views
and
the
law model.
In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder
covering
in social science:
(Eds.), Metatheory
19-40. Chicago:
Uni
D'Andrade,
of Chicago
versity
Press.
M. W.
1971. That's
Sciences,
1:309-344.
Davis,
interesting.
Philosophy
P. J. 1995. Comments
on
DiMaggio,
Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
Dubin,
R.
1978. Theory
Edmondson,
R.
building.
1984. Rhetoric
lan.
Ferraro,
F., Pfeffer,
J., &
"What
Aldine.
in sociology.
R.
is not."
theory
40: 391-397.
Chicago:
Sutton,
of the Social
I. 2005.
London:
Macmil
Economics
lan
and
How
theories can become
self
assumptions:
of Management
30: 8-24.
Review,
fulfilling. Academy
guage
Frost, P., & Stablin,
Newbury
R. (Eds.).
Park, CA:
1992. Doing
Sage.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
exemplary
research.
of Management
1154 Academy
versus autonomy
K. J. 1976. Correspondences
In D. W.
of understanding
human action.
Gergen,
language
& R. A.
Shweder
136-162.
Chicago:
in social
(Eds.), Metatheory
of Chicago
Press.
are
theories
management
P.
suggested
by Campbell's
ation, Diffusion,
Utilization,
versity
R. M.
Kanter,
K. L.
Ketner,
New
emy
K.
(Ed.).
do audiences
theories
1995. Peirce
and
University
2006. Editor's
comments:
of Management
J., &
Zedeck,
2004.
want?
contemporary
Press.
Acad
K., &
A.
Cicourel,
thought.
social
theory and methodology:
of micro
and macro
sociology.
Paul.
Kegan
J. 2004. After method:
Law,
London:
Leifer,
Mess
Towards
London:
tices. Newbury
istrative
in
in social
science
E. M.
John Van Maanen
in the Sloan School
from the University
Learning
Forum,
&
J. 1995. Style
K. E.
Weick,
K. E.
Weick,
1995. What
D. A.
Whetten,
from the ac
as
theory
Quarterly,
1989. What
Yin, R. K. 2002. Case
ed.). Newbury
Irvine. His
and
theory. Organization
research
interests
and,
currently,
cultures,
a
constitutes
study research:
Park, CA: Sage.
include
identity
Design
Studies
his Ph.D.
occupational
in work
set
is associate
and
He
received
his
Stanford
University.
lie at the intersection
of organizations
and
the relationship
between
corporate
demography
Sociology,
interests
on
the impact
Terence
ness
of work
R. Mitchell
Administration
environments
on entrepreneurial
of organizational
professor
in the Department
of
(by courtesy)
Ph.D.
from Stanford.
research
His
labor markets,
and
income
activities
is the Edward
([email protected])
at the University
of Washington.
He
with
a recent
focus
as well
inequality,
and outcomes.
Carlson
Professor
received
his Ph.D.
theoretical
Review,
tings.
([email protected])
Jesper B. S0renson
in the Graduate
behavior
of Business
School
Science,
as disciplined
imagi
14: 516-531.
Review,
is not, theorizing
40: 385-390.
of Management
is the Erwin Shell Professor
of Organization
([email protected])
at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
He received
of California,
careers
prac
is not. Admin
theory
40: 375-390.
Academy
trative Science
research.
research
1995. What
1989. Theory construction
of Management
nation.
7: 283-299.
organizational
sociology,
and
of Chi
Sage.
Quarterly,
tion? Academy
the data:
1992. Denying
sciences.
Sociological
Theoretical
6: 132-144.
Routledge.
complished
thoughts
Cre
University
2004. Renewing
(Eds.)
B. M.
Science
Van Maanen,
integration
Routledge
Chicago:
Park, CA:
R. S., & Staw,
Sutton,
an
of science:
sociology
P.
R., & Frost,
Stablin,
theory. Acad
1981. Advances
(Eds.).
1973. The
Some
Knowledge:
in 1903.) The 1903 lectures
C. S. 1995. (First published
on pragmatism.
State
(Edited by P. A. Turrisi.) Albany:
of New York Press.
University
section on theoretical
models
and conceptual
analyses.
in applied
Lessons
(re)learned.
Jour
Theory
psychology:
nal of Applied
89: 931-933.
Psychology,
Knorr-Cetina,
to validity:
Peirce,
to the special
Introduction
of democratizing
perils
5: B
October
Education,
guidelines.
8: 509-520.
empirical
investigations.
cago Press.
4: 93-95.
Publishing
31: 252-255.
Review,
S.
Uni
Chicago:
& Education,
Learning
Fordham
York:
Kilduff, M.
Klein,
2005. What
of Management
emy
R. K.
Merton,
at work.
1967. Sociologists
of Chicago
Press.
(Ed.).
1994. The
of Higher
1987. Alternatives
C. C.
Lindblom,
destroying
Learning
Hammond,
P. R.
Chronicle
1-2.
of Management
management
practices.
Academy
4: 75-91.
& Education,
good
science.
science:
October
N., & Gross,
Levett,
Fiske
University
S. 2005. Bad
Ghoshal,
in the
Review
of Busi
from the
of Illinois. His current research
interests are motivation,
University
leadership,
sion making,
in organizations.
and
behavior
turnover, with a focus on individual
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Fri, 30 May 2014 13:16:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
as
deci
is. Adminis
contribu
14: 490-495.
and methods
(3rd