Sutton and Barry M. Staw: What Theory is Not

This document summarizes key insights from Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw’s article “What Theory is Not,” published in Administrative Science Quarterly (1995). The authors tackle a recurring issue in management research: the tendency to label non-theoretical work as theory. They outline five common elements often mistaken for theory, explaining why these features alone do not fulfill the requirements of a theoretical contribution.

Main Themes

1. Defining Theory More Clearly: Sutton and Staw contend that ambiguity around the definition of “theory” hampers the development of meaningful theoretical contributions in management research. Without consensus on what theory entails, research papers often pass for theory-based contributions even when they lack the core qualities of strong theory.
2. Highlighting Common Misconceptions: The authors identify five frequent features in research papers that are mistakenly treated as theory:
   • References alone: Simply citing literature does not create theory.
   • Data alone: Presenting empirical findings without a guiding theoretical framework lacks explanatory power.
   • Lists of variables: Cataloging variables falls short of theorizing, as it fails to show relationships or underlying causation.
   • Diagrams alone: Diagrams may illustrate concepts but cannot replace causal explanations.
   • Hypotheses alone: Hypotheses need to be derived from a solid theoretical framework to hold theoretical weight.
3. Encouraging Strong Theory: Sutton and Staw advocate for “strong theory,” characterized by its ability to explain causal relationships, predict outcomes, and generate novel insights. They call for a shift in editorial practices and researcher priorities to emphasize the publication of papers with substantive theoretical contributions.

Key Ideas and Explanations

• Theory is not a mere collection of references. Although citing previous work is crucial, theory requires the integration of these references to build new arguments and offer explanations. Relying solely on references falls short of theoretical contribution.
  • Quote: “Calls for ‘more theory’ by reviewers and editors are often met with a flurry of citations. Rather than presenting more theory, authors are often simply presenting more literature” (p. 372).
• Data alone does not constitute theory. Empirical data is essential for testing and refining theory, but presenting data without an explanatory framework does not make it theoretical.
  • Quote: “Much of organizational theory is based on data. Empirical evidence may be used to test or refine existing theory or to discover new theory. But observed patterns like beta weights, factor loadings, or consistent statements by informants rarely constitute causal explanations” (p. 373).
• Lists of variables do not make theory. Identifying key variables is merely a starting point; true theory explains the relationships among variables and the rationale behind them.
  • Quote: “Papers limited to variables or constructs are often written as if well-defined variables or constructs, by themselves, are enough to make a theory. Sometimes the list of variables represents catalogs of attributes that can be entered as predictors or controls in multiple regression equations or LISREL models” (p. 374).
• Diagrams alone are not theory. While visual aids can enhance understanding, they don’t explain why relationships exist or how they operate.
  • Quote: “Regardless of their merits, diagrams and figures should be considered as stage props rather than the performance itself” (p. 376).
• Hypotheses alone do not form theory. Hypotheses are testable predictions that emerge from theoretical reasoning, but presenting hypotheses without underlying logic does not constitute theory.
  • Quote: “Hypotheses (or predictions) are part of a well-crafted theory and can be an important part of theory building… A theoretical model is not simply a statement of hypothesis.” (p. 376).

Key Quotes

• “Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships” (p. 377).
• “Strong theory delves into underlying processes so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence” (p. 377).
• “Like other descriptions of strong theory, the prior paragraph reads more like a wish list than a set of realistic expectations. This may be why, so long as the main reason for theory is to publish in the best journals, we can predict that our theories should be differently. This is better theory on demand than the risky business of creating truly novel ideas. Perhaps erecting ‘in our five ‘Wrong Way’ signs will help change behavior in ways that more eloquent road maps have not” (p. 378).

Conclusions

Sutton and Staw advocate for a higher standard in defining theory within the academic community. They urge reviewers, editors, and researchers to prioritize strong theory over superficial theoretical elements. They argue for clearer guidelines on what constitutes robust theory and call for a commitment to publishing research that offers real theoretical insights rather than merely the appearance of theory