What Theory is Not, Theorizing is” by Karl E. Weick

The paper titled “What Theory is Not, Theorizing is” is authored by Karl E. Weick from the University of Michigan. It was published in the Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) in September 1995 (Volume 40, pages 385-390). This is a short commentary or “ASQ Forum” piece, part of a discussion section in the journal. It serves as a response to an earlier article by Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw titled “What Theory Is Not” (also in ASQ, 1995, Volume 40, pages 371-384), where Sutton and Staw argue that certain elements (references, data, lists, diagrams, hypotheses) are not theory. Weick agrees with their core message but nuances it by focusing on the process of theorizing rather than just the products. He argues that theory is often an approximation, and the elements Sutton and Staw dismiss can be part of the theorizing process, which is an “interim struggle” toward stronger theories.

The paper is conceptual and reflective, with no empirical data, figures, tables, or formal abstract. It draws on Weick’s expertise in sensemaking and organizational theory, citing a small number of references (about 10). Weick expresses “unease” with the term “theory” but endorses the need for better theory while emphasizing theorizing as a dynamic, iterative process. The tone is conversational, pedagogical, and somewhat confessional, aiming to add “nuance” to Sutton and Staw’s argument without subverting it. Reproduction notes indicate it’s reprinted with permission, prohibiting further reproduction.

Key themes include: theory as a continuum of approximations, the process of theorizing (disciplined imagination, interim struggles), and reevaluating the five “not theory” elements (references, data, lists, diagrams, hypotheses) as potential steps toward theory. Weick uses metaphors like “gestalt” and “tweaking” to illustrate points, and he references his own work (e.g., Mann Gulch analysis) as examples.

Key Sections and Extracted Details

The paper is not formally sectioned but flows as a continuous essay with implicit parts: introduction/confession, discussion of approximations, reevaluation of the five elements, and conclusion with references. Below, I break it down based on content flow, extracting all discernible details from the OCR text (noting OCR errors like “Staw” for “Staw”, “interretations” for “interpretations”, etc., but interpreting them contextually).

Introduction and Confession of Unease (Page 1)

• Weick opens by noting that theorizing products rarely emerge as “fullblown theories,” so most organizational “theories” are approximations.
• These approximations vary in generality but are often “texts created ‘in lieu of’ strong theories.”
• Theorizing is a process where people “graft theory onto stark sets of data” and “intentionally inch toward stronger theories.”
• He confesses unease with the term “theory” in this context, doubting if journals are flooded with “nontheory” articles as Sutton and Staw imply.
• Weick endorses Sutton and Staw’s message: Theory isn’t “added,” transformed via graphics/references, or feigned by concepts. But he wants to focus on theorizing as a process to add nuance.
• He agrees scholars often mislabel elements as theory but argues the five (references, data, lists, diagrams, hypotheses) may have “gradations of abstractness and generality,” making them closer to theory than dismissed.

Theory as Approximation (Pages 1-2)

• Most labeled “theories” are approximations, per Merton (1967) who described four forms: (1) general orientations (broad frameworks without relations); (2) concept analysis (refining concepts without interrelating); (3) post-factum interpretation (ad hoc hypotheses from single observations); (4) empirical generalizations (enumerating relationships without further interpretation).
• None are full theories but can aid development; their presence isn’t proof of “shoddy theorizing.”
• Weick cites Runkel (1990: 129-130) on theory as a continuum: Scholars hesitate to claim “theory,” using titles like “Toward a Theory” or “Elements of a Theory,” showing gradations (e.g., from hunch to speculation to model).
• Runkel argues: A “hunch” is vague; “speculation” is reasoned but untested; “hypothesis” is testable; “model” represents; “theory” is comprehensive and tested. But all are on a spectrum of abstractness/generality.
• Weick adds that verbally expressed theories often leave “tacit” key insights (TenHouten & Hambrick, 1973), so products look incomplete but stem from deeper processes.

Reevaluation of the Five “Not Theory” Elements (Pages 2-5)

Weick examines each of Sutton and Staw’s five, arguing they can be part of theorizing if contextualized as “interim struggles.”

• References: Unconnected or ceremonial citations aren’t theory (just pointers). But precise extraction/paraphrasing from references can build theory, though it takes space. Reviewers/editors must tolerate this.
• Data: Alone, not theory (echoing Bacharach, 1989). But Weick cites Starbuck (1993) on treating data as “symptoms” leading directly to “prescriptions” (like doctors treating without full diagnosis). Theories may come later from observing data-prescription links. Example: Weick’s Mann Gulch paper (1993) used data as symptoms in thought trials to derive theory (collapse of sensemaking). Data can foreshadow active inquiry.
• Lists: Farther from theory than diagrams, but imply relations (e.g., order suggests importance, causation as additive/simultaneous). With “tweaking,” lists can become explanations.
• Diagrams: Not theory, but more explicit than lists about sequences, strengths, pathways. Example: Staw & Ross (1987) diagram on escalation implies multi-level shifts (individual to structural). Diagrams retain tacit insights from gestalts, unlike linear propositions.
• Hypotheses: Stand-alone ones aren’t theory without “why” (connections to propositions). But raising abstraction levels can turn them into theory.

Weick ranks them: References/data less general (farther from theory); lists/diagrams/hypotheses closer, needing minor articulation.

Theorizing as Process (Throughout, Especially Pages 4-5)

• Theorizing involves variation, selection, retention (Weick’s 1989 “disciplined imagination”).
• Products (the five) are “place markers” in struggles; context matters—if showing progression (e.g., from data to diagrams), they’re theorizing steps.
• Example: Weick’s Mann Gulch reanalysis involved thought trials on data, leading to theory.
• Tradeoffs: Theories balance generality, accuracy, simplicity (no perfect theory). ASQ’s contributor notice (quoted) allows “multiple forms of grounding” but not “ungrounded theory.”
• Ultimate tradeoff: Process (theorizing) vs. product (theory). If the five are articulated as moving struggles, allow revision; otherwise, reject as “in lieu of theory.”

Conclusion and Implications (Page 5)

• Approximations mean we expect too much from single efforts; focus on tradeoffs.
• ASQ notice implies tolerance for incomplete but grounded work.
• If products show clear theorizing context/progression, request “revise and resubmit.”

References (Page 6)

• Bacharach, Samuel B. (1989). “Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.” Academy of Management Review, 14: 496-515.
• Burke, Philip J., and Margaret R. Burke (1984). A Guide to Usage for Writers and Students in the Social Sciences. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
• Merton, Frederick (1967). On Theoretical Sociology. New York: Free Press. (OCR error: “Marton, Frederick” likely “Merton, Robert K.”)
• Starbuck, William H. (1993). “The Process of Step or Indene Starbuck and the Theory of the Firm.” In Arthur G. Bedeian (ed.), Management Laureates, vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. (OCR garbled: “Indene” likely “Independent”.)
• Staw, Barry M., and Jerry Ross (1987). “Commitment to a policy decision: A multi-theoretical perspective.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 40-64. (OCR error: “mathematical” for “multi-theoretical”.)
• TenHouten, Warren D., and D. C. Hambrick (1973). Science and Its Mirror Image. New York: Wiley. (OCR error: “Tenthouten” for “TenHouten”; “Micro Image” for “Mirror Image”.)
• Weick, Karl E. (1993). “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628-652.

What the Paper Is All About

This paper is a nuanced response to Sutton and Staw’s critique of weak theorizing in organizational studies. Weick agrees that references, data, lists, diagrams, and hypotheses alone aren’t full theory but argues they can be integral to the theorizing process—an “interim struggle” toward stronger approximations. Theory is rarely “fullblown”; it’s a continuum (hunch to model), often tacit and gestalt-like, with products as markers of progress. By focusing on process (disciplined imagination, thought trials), Weick adds depth: These elements gain theoretical value in context, showing movement (e.g., data as symptoms leading to prescriptions, diagrams implying causality). He warns against quick rejections, advocating for tradeoffs (generality/accuracy/simplicity) and revise opportunities if progression is clear. Implications: Encourages reflective, iterative theorizing; critiques overemphasis on products; influences pedagogy by promoting nuance in reviews/editing. As an ASQ Forum piece, it fosters dialogue on theory quality, drawing from Weick’s sensemaking expertise (e.g., Mann Gulch example). Overall, it’s a call for patience with approximations, balancing Sutton/Staw’s rigor with process-oriented flexibility to advance the field. The OCR has errors (e.g., “Staw” repetitions, “interretations” for “interpretations”), but the argument is coherent: Theorizing, not static theory, drives inquiry.

Answer to Question 1: Discuss Weick’s conceptualization of theory as a continuum of approximations rather than a dichotomy, drawing on Merton’s four forms of theoretical approximations.

Weick sees theory not as a strict yes-or-no thing, but as a range of steps that get closer to a full theory. Most ideas called “theory” are really just rough versions or “approximations” because real, complete theories are rare in organizational studies. He uses Merton’s (1967) ideas to explain this with four types:

• General orientations: Broad ideas about what variables matter, but no links between them.
• Concept analysis: Defining and refining ideas without connecting them.
• Post-factum interpretation: Quick explanations from one observation, without checking alternatives.
• Empirical generalizations: Describing a link between two things, but not going deeper.

These aren’t full theories, but they help build toward one. Weick says calling them “not theory” might slow down research if they’re part of the process.

Answer to Question 2: Explain how Weick uses Runkel’s continuum (from hunch to theory) to argue that most scholarly products are approximations of theory.

Weick borrows from Runkel (1990) to show theory as a scale, not an all-or-nothing. Runkel lists stages like:

• Hunch: A vague feeling.
• Speculation: Reasoned guess, untested.
• Hypothesis: Testable idea.
• Model: Representation of parts.
• Theory: Full, tested explanation.

Scholars often use titles like “Toward a Theory” because their work is midway. Weick argues this means most papers are approximations—steps on the way—not finished theories. It explains why journals have “nontheory” issues; they’re just mid-process.

Answer to Question 3: Critically analyze Weick’s unease with labeling certain elements as “not theory” and his preference for focusing on theorizing as a process.

Weick feels uneasy because strict labels might miss that theory is messy and ongoing. He agrees with Sutton and Staw that things like data aren’t full theory, but says they can be part of “theorizing”—the active process of building ideas.

• Strengths: Highlights real work (e.g., struggles with data) over end products.
• Weaknesses: Might blur lines, letting weak work pass as “process.”

Overall, shifting to process encourages patience but risks lowering standards.

Answer to Question 4: How does Weick describe the tacit aspects of theorizing, such as gestalts and originating insights, and why are they important for theory building?

Weick says theorizing often starts with “tacit” (unspoken) ideas like gestalts—whole pictures that words can’t fully capture. Originating insights are the “aha” moments that get lost in writing.

They’re important because theories are more than words; tacit parts hold the depth. Diagrams or lists might hint at them, helping build stronger ideas over time.

Answer to Question 5: Evaluate Weick’s assertion that verbally expressed theories often leave key portions tacit, with implications for judging theoretical products.

Weick claims spoken or written theories miss silent insights, like in TenHouten and Hambrick (1973).

• Positive: Explains why papers seem incomplete—they’re approximations.
• Negative: Makes judging hard; reviewers might miss hidden value.

Implications: Judge by context/process, not just the final text, to spot real progress.

Answer to Question 6: Discuss theorizing as an “interim struggle” according to Weick, including its role in inching toward stronger theories.

Theorizing is a tough, step-by-step fight with ideas, like tweaking data into explanations. It’s “interim” because products (e.g., lists) are temporary markers.

It inches forward by building from one approximation to another, like from data to diagrams, slowly making theories stronger and more general.

Answer to Question 7: Critically analyze Weick’s view of theorizing as involving variation, selection, and retention, and its connection to disciplined imagination.

Weick sees theorizing like evolution: Variation (new ideas), selection (picking good ones), retention (keeping them). This ties to his “disciplined imagination” (1989)—creative but controlled thinking.

• Strengths: Makes theorizing systematic yet flexible.
• Weaknesses: Might overlook luck or intuition.

It connects by showing imagination needs discipline to evolve ideas.

Answer to Question 8: How can the process of theorizing transform stark data into theoretical approximations, as illustrated by Weick’s Mann Gulch example?

In Mann Gulch (Weick, 1993), raw disaster data was like “symptoms.” Through “thought trials” (testing ideas), it became theory on sensemaking collapse.

Theorizing transforms by experimenting with data, finding patterns, and building explanations step by step.

Answer to Question 9: Reflect on the implications of viewing theorizing as a series of place markers and interim products for advancing organizational inquiry.

Seeing products as markers encourages ongoing work, not perfection. It advances inquiry by allowing revisions, fostering collaboration, and reducing fear of incomplete ideas.

Answer to Question 10: Evaluate the tradeoffs in theorizing between process (doing it) and product (freezing it), as per Weick’s ultimate tradeoff argument.

Process is dynamic and creative; product is fixed but shareable.

• Tradeoff: Process keeps ideas alive but hard to publish; product enables feedback but stops evolution.
• Weick says balance by viewing products as temporary.

Answer to Question 11: Discuss how Weick reevaluates references as potential building blocks in theorizing, contrasting with Sutton and Staw’s dismissal.

Sutton and Staw say references aren’t theory (just pointers). Weick agrees but says precise paraphrasing from them builds ideas, if space is given.

Contrast: Weick sees them as steps if explained well.

Answer to Question 12: Critically analyze Weick’s argument, drawing on Starbuck, that data can lead to prescriptions without immediate theory, using the medical analogy.

Like doctors treating symptoms before diagnosis (Starbuck, 1993), data can lead to fixes first, theory later.

• Strengths: Practical for complex fields.
• Weaknesses: Risks wrong fixes without theory.

Analogy shows data as starting points.

Answer to Question 13: How does Weick argue that lists imply tacit relations and can be tweaked into explanations, differing from Sutton and Staw?

Lists hint at unspoken links (e.g., order means importance). Weick says minor changes turn them into theory; Sutton and Staw see them as non-theory.

Difference: Weick views them closer to explanations.

Answer to Question 14: Apply Weick’s analysis of diagrams to Staw and Ross’s escalation model, explaining how diagrams retain tacit insights.

In Staw and Ross (1987), diagrams show multi-level shifts in commitment. Weick says they keep whole “gestalts” that words miss, implying unspoken ideas like domain activation.

Answer to Question 15: Evaluate Weick’s ranking of the five elements (references/data farthest, hypotheses closest to theory) and its implications for manuscript evaluation.

Ranking: References/data least general; lists/diagrams/hypotheses more.

Implications: Reject first two easier; give last three chances if showing progress.

Answer to Question 16: Discuss the tradeoffs between generality, accuracy, and simplicity in theorizing, as Weick derives from ASQ’s contributor notice.

No theory is perfect in all three; trade one for others. ASQ allows grounding forms, meaning tolerate imbalances if progressing.

Answer to Question 17: Critically analyze how focusing on theorizing processes could influence journal review practices, per Weick’s revise-and-resubmit suggestion.

Focus on process leads to more revisions if struggles shown. Positive: Encourages growth; negative: Might accept weak work.

Answer to Question 18: Reflect on the broader impact of Weick’s emphasis on approximations for pedagogy in organizational theory courses.

It teaches students theory as ongoing, reducing pressure. Impact: Builds resilience, focuses on process over perfection.

Answer to Question 19: How might Weick’s process-oriented view mitigate the “rash of nontheory articles” concern raised by Sutton and Staw?

By seeing articles as steps, it reduces rejections, turning “nontheory” into chances for improvement via context.

Answer to Question 20: Evaluate the consequences of labeling approximations as “not theory” on scholarly inquiry, as critiqued by Weick.

Consequences: Slows progress, discourages risks. Weick critiques it for ignoring process, potentially stifling innovation.

Answer to Question 21: Compare Weick’s process focus with Bacharach’s criteria for theory evaluation, highlighting similarities in emphasizing approximations.

Both see theories as incomplete; Bacharach (1989) uses criteria like falsifiability. Similar: Value steps; different: Weick on process, Bacharach on structure.

Answer to Question 22: Discuss Weick’s use of his Mann Gulch analysis in relation to theorizing from data as symptoms and thought trials.

Mann Gulch data was tested via trials, leading to sensemaking theory. Shows data as starting “symptoms” for process.

Answer to Question 23: Critically reflect on how Weick’s endorsement yet nuancing of Sutton and Staw advances dialogues on theory quality in ASQ.

Endorses rigor but adds process nuance, advancing by encouraging balanced debates and less rejection.

Answer to Question 24: How does Weick’s view of diagrams as preserving gestalts compare to TenHouten and Hambrick’s ideas on tacit insights?

Both see non-verbal forms holding unspoken ideas; Weick applies to diagrams, TenHouten to science’s “mirror image.”

Answer to Question 25: Evaluate Weick’s contribution to theory-building debates by comparing his approximations continuum to Merton’s forms.

Weick builds on Merton’s four forms, adding continuum for flexibility. Contribution: Makes debates more inclusive.

Answer to Question 26: Reflect on the ethical implications of encouraging tolerance for interim struggles in theorizing, as per Weick.

Ethically, it promotes fairness in reviews but risks lowering quality if struggles aren’t genuine.

Answer to Question 27: Discuss how Weick’s theorizing process aligns with or diverges from Starbuck’s symptoms-to-prescriptions model.

Aligns: Both treat data first, theory later. Diverges: Weick on imagination, Starbuck on practical fixes.

Answer to Question 28: Critically analyze whether Weick’s nuance risks diluting Sutton and Staw’s call for stronger theory.

Risk: Yes, by tolerating weak work. But analyzes as strengthening by focusing on real progress.

Answer to Question 29: Apply Weick’s framework to assess a metaphor like “garbage cans” in organizational theory building.

“Garbage cans” (Cohen et al., 1972) is a gestalt; if leading to trials/hypotheses, it’s theorizing step per Weick.

Answer to Question 30: Reflect on the legacy of Weick’s commentary for modern organizational studies, focusing on process over product.

Legacy: Shifts field to value journeys, influencing teaching/reviews toward iterative, patient inquiry.