Why we need theory in the organization sciences

2017

The goal of this paper is to explore the relationship between theory and practice in management research. In examining the relationship between theory and practice, the application and use of the knowledge-based theory of the firm were investigated in five peer-reviewed articles. The findings from the literature review reveal that philosophical and practical issues prevent theory application. Thus, the use of correlation methods does not allow investigators to test explanations provided by a particular theory effectively. The ineffectiveness in theory application concerns four domains: (a) the multifaceted and complicated nature of the various organizational phenomena, (b) the fragmented theorizing, (c) inappropriate research designs and methodologies, and (d) the untested assumptions. Also, there is an inadequate explanation of the practical aspects of how organizational social interactions, driving objectives and organizational knowledge assets might support tacit and explicit knowledge exchange at an organizational and inter-organizational level. The paper was structured on three thematic sections. In the first section, a comprehensive analysis of how theory could guide and advance practice is analyzed, considering the required parameters in converting theory into practice. The second section provides a brief description of the knowledge-based theory of a firm which is an improved version of the dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. An evaluation of the appropriateness of the uses to which the theory has been applied is presented in the third section.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 2003

This is a paper where what is unsaid is as much important to me as what is said. Ultimately, I would say it made me think with a hammer, but still left me frustrated. The theory-practice debate has always engaged me as a practicing administrator, but I could hold on fondly to my prejudices until I began to write this piece. 2. I have tried to answer two questions: 1. Are multiple paradigms good for organizational theory? 2. Is theory valid for its own sake or for its relevance and usefulness to the practitioner? I have begun by trying to see the reasons for the theory-practice divide: Theory does not capture complexity, the heterogeneous nature of the practitioner audience, theory’s emphasis on what ‘ought to be’ than process and politics, distance from local reality, and theory creating theoreticians, not actors. 3. In Part II, I have tried to see if a bridge can be built. History, Globalization and the emergence of Professional disciplines (management, public policy) seem to be closing the gap. Part III is a discussion of Professional/Practitioner Rationality vis-à-vis Technical Rationality and the nature of Professional theory. In Part IV I have concluded that given the complex nature of reality, and given that theory and practice validate each other; a multi-paradigmatic discipline like organizational studies is more equipped to provide answers than other mono-paradigmatic sciences. 4. Early on, I began to have doubts (a) Is it not better to leave theory free to find validation in itself than in practice? (b) Is it the practitioner’s responsibility to sift and find answers or the theorist’s to cater to practicality? (c) Is it good for a discipline to be self engaged or engage with the world outside itself? As I read more and more to find clarity, what I found were heartening echoes in literature rather than answers. My questions remain, but I hope I am a bit wiser now in not having all the answers.

International Journal of Technology and Management Research, 2022

The review study was based on understanding the traditional role of organizational research in its evolution and the intended improvement in organizational performance. The review expands on empirical provocative article on publication bias in medical journals which concluded that most in most research designs the research findings are false. This is a serious threat to cumulative knowledge development and is injurious to the academic enterprise. Organizational research is seemingly contaminated by a widely shared prescription for research to be 'interesting' while eliminating philosophical quality. This contributes to the mismatch between the objectives of the research and organizational practices. The field of organizational research is experiencing disruptive trends since it is the meeting point for numerous disciplines. Organizational research should strive to be informed by responsible research than to focus on being merely 'interesting'. This requires paying attention to the research paradigm components: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods to resolve the credibility challenge. The study provided a basis for harmonizing philosophical and organizational research to close the discovered gaps. Addressing the credibility dilemma in organizational research is crucial to igniting transformation conversations; maintaining public confidence, and guarding the authority of those in academics. The scientific claims of organizational research should be beyond reproach. This article advocates for the need to shun the current over-reliance on formulaic conformity, instrumental research, and a partisan approach to research.

This paper analyzes the prospects for cumulative theory development in organization theory. Organization theory generally takes organizations (business corporations, non-profits, hospitals, universities, and so on) as discrete and meaningful units of analysis. The revolution in information and communication technologies over the past two decades has made comprehensive time-series data on millions of organizations widely available to scholars around the world. Yet it is not obvious that organization theory has become more precise, more general, or more accurate as a result. I argue that this is due to three difficulties that additional data cannot fully resolve: (a) researchers lack experimental control, limiting their ability to draw causal inferences, and are largely inattentive to the standards for valid quasi-experimental design; (b) organizations are more appropriately construed as tools rather than as natural objects susceptible to "laws;" and (c) the regularities underlying organizational dynamics change over time such that empirical generalizations that are true during one period may be false in a different period. I conclude by suggesting improvements to research practice that would enable organization theory to progress toward greater insights.

Academy of Management Review, 2021

International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION

Management is an economic science and more than ever, temporal, as a direct effect of the level of social development, with many interdependencies with other fields of knowledge. Generically said, studies and research in the field of organisational management involve a high level of difficulty compared to other types of sciences because they primarily investigate aspects related to the soft component of the organisation, the human resource. The results, operationalised through the design and implementation of decisions, are achieved by people, for people, and people are involved in the (micro or macro) organisational universe with different experiences and expertise, different attitudes, different expectations, transforming other types of resources. It is difficult to translate purely qualitative aspects, which can be extracted from an organisational framework often by observation, into quantitative contexts that support the transformation of conclusions into judgements of principle...

British Journal of Management, 2001

The call for greater relevance in management research leads us to examine the remedies offered by organization theory to organizational problems. In contrast to Starkey and Madan (2001), we argue that research engagement with other academic disciplines helps produce broadly useful knowledge. Installing practitioners in central places in the research process may focus research on short-run rather than deep-seated processes. We illustrate the relevance of organization theory through two examples of how apparently esoteric knowledge (produced through cross-disciplinary collaboration) can have surprising application. First we show how the social network perspective proved useful in rescuing a manager from the perils of unpopularity. Second, we show how deconstruction can uncover the institutionalized routines that disempower managers and workers. Neither the management training centers nor the web-based learning initiatives admired by Starkey and Madan are likely to deliver insights that address deep-seated processes of change within society. Collaboration with academics across the university can further our goals of research relevant to practitioners.

European Management Journal, 2018

There are few qualitative organizational accounts that explore the constitution of scientific fields in management. We developed a methodology for understanding the academic modes of scientific knowledge production in management research from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) and actor-network theory (ANT). SSK and ANT offer a way to account for how scientific fields in organization studies are enacted. Key to this process are splitting and inversion of statements, credibility and network formation, as well as the concepts of credit, trajectory and position. Specific statements making knowledge claims (e.g. handbooks, special editions) are situated in academic practices that obscure those rhetorical strategies that enable the production of a network of knowledge that can act, organizationally, as a more or less unified sub-field. We take as a starting point a collection of texts, dated 2011, which sought to systematize the main currents of a disciplinary sub-field over the last decade, focusing on how statements are transformed into scientific certainty and how the question of credibility is established. The sub-field is that of organizational learning. Organizational learning's particular language relies on epistemic approaches that make its epistemic assumptions intelligible within a network. This language tends to reify and naturalize specific practices that become accredited as organization learning. The material/textual artefacts that sustain these practices, instead of being reified can be reframed as enacting a scientific field whose re-signification acts upon the network that enabled its existence.

The Academy of Management Annals, 2008

It is the nature of the object that determines the form of its possible science (Bhaskar, 1998, p. 3). Uncertain knowledge is better than ignorance (Mitchell, 2000, p. 9) This chapter is motivated by the failure of Management and Organizational Science (MOS) to date to make full effective use of its available research evidence. Failure to make effective use of scientific evidence is a problem both management scholars and practitioners face. Effective use of evidence, as we employ the term here, means to assemble and interpret a body of primary studies relevant to a question of fact, and then take appropriate action based upon the conclusions drawn. For science, appropriate action might be to direct subsequent research efforts elsewhere if the science is clear, or to recommend a new tact if findings are inconclusive. For practice, appropriate action might begin with a summary of key findings to share with educators, thought leaders, consultants, and the broader practice community. Unfortunately, bodies of evidence in MOS are seldom assembled or interpreted in the systematic fashion needed to permit their confident use. A systematic review of the full body of evidence is the key first step in formulating a science-based conclusion. In consequence at present, neither the MOS scholar nor the practitioner can readily claim to be well-informed. This lapse has many causes. Two are central to our failure to use MOS evidence well: 1) overvaluing novelty to the detriment of accumulating convergent findings and 2) the general absence of systematic research syntheses. These two causes are intertwined in that as we shall show, use of research syntheses ties closely with how a field gauges the value of its research. This chapter's subject, the systematic research synthesis, is not to be confused with a conventional literature review, its less systematic, non-representative counterpart. Systematic research syntheses assemble, analyze and interpret a comprehensive body of evidence in a highly reflective fashion according to six evidentiary criteria we describe. The why, what, and how of research synthesis in MOS is this chapter's focus.