‘Theory’ is a core element of management and organization studies (MOS) and social science more broadly. It is frequently argued that a key task for scholars is to develop theories that improve our scientific practices and make a difference to organizations and society.
But what precisely does ‘theory’ mean? This question is critical because without a clear understanding of what theory means and stands for beyond a celebratory term, it is difficult to develop and evaluate theories, and ultimately to advance human understanding beyond mere empirical description and hypothesis testing.
As we show in our study published in Journal of Management Studies prevalent
definitions of theory are too restrictive, as they do not acknowledge the existence of multiple kinds of scientific knowledge, but largely recognize only one kind as ‘theory’, namely explanatory knowledge. This prevalent and singular definition of theory not only hampers more pluralistic and varied knowledge development, but also creates an uneven playing field within academia. As an alternative to this singular and exclusive meaning of theory as explanatory knowledge, we propose a theory typology that clarifies, broadens and differentiates several additional meanings of ‘theory’.
A typology of theory types
The proposed typology consists of the following five main theory types: (1) explaining theory, (2) comprehending theory, (3) ordering theory, (4) enacting theory, and (5) provoking theory.
Explaining theory is by far the most developed and common theory type within MOS and social science more generally. The overall purpose of explaining theory is to generate knowledge about the inner workings of organizational phenomena – that is, their causal relations – albeit in different ways depending on which paradigms or theoretical traditions it is used and developed within.
Instead of regarding causal regularities among variables, comprehending theory commonly regards meaning as constitutive of organizational phenomena. The main purpose of comprehending theory, then, is to offer a qualified understanding of organizational phenomena by determining their meaning: that is, what phenomena such as ‘decision’, ‘diversity’ and ‘identity’ are about.
The main purpose of ordering theory is not to represent and explain the inner workings of phenomena (as in explaining theory), or to articulate the meaning of them (as in comprehending theory). Instead, it to categorize phenomena in theoretically useful ways that allow us to reason in more differentiated and nuanced ways about the nature of phenomena.
In contrast to the previous theory types, which in different ways articulate the specific characteristics of organizational phenomena, the overall purpose of enacting theory is to illuminate how phenomena like ‘leadership’, ‘equality’ and ‘trust’ are continuously produced and reproduced: that is, the processes through which they emerge, evolve, reoccur, change and decline over time.
Provoking theory does not aim primarily to provide explanation, comprehend meaning, order or articulate the dynamics of phenomena. Instead, its main purpose is to show alternative, often eye-opening and disruptive ways of seeing phenomena. Its focal concern is to challenge established mind-sets and open up other modes of thinking through dialectics between existing theory and a counterpoint.
Although the theory types differ significantly, they are not mutually exclusive, but overlap somewhat in their knowledge orientations: for example, the purpose of explanation can also sometimes be evident in the other theory types and vice versa. However, it is the dominance of one of these purposes – that is, the overall and defining purpose of each type – that constitutes each type’s distinctiveness.
So, what do we gain from the proposed typology?
In comparison to the dominant explanatory view of theory in MOS and social sciences more generally the typology offers a number of advantages. First, it provides a considerably broader, more pluralistic and, at the same time, more precise definition of the meaning(s) of theory. Specifically, it counteracts ambiguities surrounding the notion of theory within both MOS and social science more broadly by identifying and articulating multiple theory types and their structural elements.
Second, the typology encourages and facilitates the development of several different kinds of knowledge, and not only explanatory knowledge. This means that not only the researchers who pursue explanatory knowledge, but also those who develop knowledge with the purpose to comprehend, order, enact or provoke can have their knowledge recognized as ‘theory’. The typology is therefore likely to impact the skewed status and resource and publication opportunities within academia, currently generated by the prevalent singular meaning of theory as explanatory.
Third, the typology opens up more varied ways of theorizing within MOS and social science through working with multiple types of theory, where each theory type offers a specific way of theorizing about organizational phenomena. It thereby provides a new and broader range of options for theorizing, with the potential development of more novel ideas and theories, as well as contributing to the development of more multi-dimensional knowledge of organizational phenomena among both researchers and practitioners.
Finally, the typology offers support to authors to articulate more explicitly what type or combination of theory types they are trying to develop in their research. In a similar vein, the typology will enable reviewers, editors and other readers to consider more carefully what theory type an author proposes and, based on this, better identify, evaluate and appreciate the specific theory (and theoretical contribution) being proposed in research texts.
We are aware that our proposed theory typology may reinforce the ongoing theory mania in our field. We certainly need alternatives to theory, such as upgrading the value of insights, new concepts and other contributions that are not necessarily plugged into a theory typology. However, we still argue that theories that explain, comprehend, order, enact and challenge organizational phenomena are crucial for the advancement of organization studies. We need a spectrum of theories that in different ways contribute to knowledge about something as complex as contemporary organizations. To understand alternative views of what theory is and what theory stands for is therefore vital for supporting this enterprise.
Keywords: scientific knowledge, theoretical contribution, theory, theory development
0 Comments