What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? by David A. Whetten

Overview of the Paper

The paper titled “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” is authored by David A. Whetten from the University of Illinois. It was published in the Academy of Management Review (AMR) in October 1989 (Volume 14, Issue 4, pages 490–495). As the editor of AMR at the time, Whetten wrote this as an editorial to provide guidance on evaluating theoretical submissions. The paper aims to clarify the often ambiguous criteria for what makes a strong theoretical contribution in organizational and management research. It draws on Whetten’s experience reviewing manuscripts and existing literature on theory building (e.g., references to Dubin, 1978; Kaplan, 1964; and others).

The core message is that theory development is like constructing a building: it requires solid foundations (building blocks), value-added improvements, and incremental progress. Whetten emphasizes that good theory is not just descriptive but explanatory, insightful, and useful for advancing knowledge. He critiques common shortcomings in submissions, such as redundancy or lack of interest, and encourages authors to focus on comprehensiveness, parsimony, and clarity.

The paper is structured around three key questions:

What are the building blocks of theory development?
What is a legitimate, value-added contribution to theory development?
How can the process of theory development be made more incremental?

There is no formal abstract, as it is an editorial piece. No figures, tables, or empirical data are included; it is purely conceptual and reflective.

Key Sections and Extracted Details

Introduction

Whetten introduces his motivation: As AMR editor, he sought a simple way to communicate standards for theoretical contributions to authors and reviewers.
He notes that while there are excellent treatments on theory building (e.g., Dubin, 1978; Weick, 1989), they are often too complex or lengthy for practical use in reviews.
He shares a “model of theory-construction pedagogy” he developed, based on common reviewer questions like “What’s new?” and “So what?” to evaluate manuscripts.
The paper is organized around the three questions mentioned above, aiming to make theory development more accessible and systematic.

1. What Are the Building Blocks of Theory Development?

Whetten breaks down theory into essential components, using a metaphor of theory as a “story” about why certain acts, events, structures, and thoughts occur.
What: Refers to the factors (variables, constructs, concepts) included in the theory. A good “What” is comprehensive (includes all relevant factors) yet parsimonious (excludes irrelevant ones). Adding or removing factors can improve a theory if justified.
How: Describes the relationships between the factors (e.g., causal links, often illustrated in boxes-and-arrows diagrams). This addresses how elements are interconnected.
Why: The underlying logic or rationale justifying the “What” and “How.” This includes psychological, economic, or social dynamics. Whetten stresses that without a strong “Why,” a theory is merely descriptive, not explanatory. It must compel the reader to accept the proposed relationships as plausible.
Who, Where, When: These set the temporal and contextual boundaries of the theory. They define the limits of generalizability (e.g., under what conditions the theory holds). Initially treated as assumptions, they become critical in applied testing but are often underemphasized in pure theory papers.
Whetten argues that a complete theory must address all these elements. Comprehensiveness ensures nothing important is missed, while parsimony avoids unnecessary complexity. He cites Polanyi (1962) to emphasize that theories are like “nets cast to catch the world,” not mere accumulations of facts.
Example: In developing a theory, after identifying factors (“What”), the next question is “How are they related?” followed by “Why these relationships?”

2. What Is a Legitimate, Value-Added Contribution to Theory Development?

Not every paper needs to build a new theory from scratch; most contributions improve existing ones.
Improvements to Building Blocks:
Enhance “What” and “How” by adding/removing factors or clarifying relationships (e.g., substituting better representations).
Strengthen “Why” by providing better theoretical justifications or challenging assumptions.
Refine “Who, Where, When” by broadening (generalizing) or narrowing (specifying) the theory’s scope.
Propositions: Not all theories require formal propositions, but they are useful for clarifying relationships and implications. Propositions should be logically derived and call existing views into question.
Qualities of Good Theoretical Contributions:
Insightful: Provokes new understanding or challenges conventional wisdom.
Useful: Advances research or practice (e.g., generates testable hypotheses).
Appropriately Scoped: Even specialized papers should have broader implications.
Falsifiable: Allows for empirical testing.
Types of Contributions:
Critiques: Should not just point out flaws but propose remedies or alternatives (e.g., classic critiques like those of Freudian theory).
Integrations: Synthesize disparate views into a cohesive framework.
Applications: Adapt theories to new contexts.
Whetten warns against “trivial” additions (e.g., minor tweaks without justification) and emphasizes that contributions must be substantive.

3. How Can the Process of Theory Development Be Made More Incremental?

Theory building should be cumulative, like adding to a shared knowledge base rather than reinventing it.
Authors should explicitly connect their work to prior theories, showing how it builds upon or extends them.
Reviewers should evaluate based on incremental value, not just novelty.
Whetten advocates for a “community of scholars” approach, where theories evolve through collective refinement.
He notes that AMR encourages papers that advance ongoing dialogues in the field.

Common Reasons for Rejection or Low Evaluations

Uninteresting: Topics with narrow appeal or no clear “So what?” (Why should readers care?).
Not Useful: Fails to advance theoretical or practical knowledge.
Redundant/Trivial: Rehashes existing ideas without new insights.
Disconnected: Lacks ties to broader literature.
Whetten advises authors to ensure their work is relevant, novel, and well-justified.

Conclusion

Whetten reiterates that theory is the “currency” of the discipline and calls for more rigorous, incremental development.
He hopes his framework will aid authors, reviewers, and educators in fostering better theoretical work.
References include key works like Bacharach (1989), Dubin (1978), Kaplan (1964), Kerlinger (1979), Merton (1967), Polanyi (1962), Stinchcombe (1968), Sutton & Staw (1985), and Weick (1989).

What the Paper Is All About

This paper is fundamentally a guide for scholars in management and organizational studies on crafting and evaluating theoretical contributions. Whetten demystifies theory building by proposing a practical framework centered on the questions “What,” “How,” “Why,” and “Who/Where/When.” It emphasizes that strong theories are comprehensive yet parsimonious, logically coherent, and insightful, providing explanations rather than just descriptions. The paper critiques common pitfalls in submissions to journals like AMR and promotes an incremental, collaborative approach to theory development. Overall, it serves as a pedagogical tool to elevate the quality of theoretical research, making it more accessible and impactful for advancing the field. The uploaded OCR version appears to have significant errors (e.g., repetitions, typos like “thistualist” for “theoretical,” “Policzné” for “Polanyi”), but the core ideas align with this reconstruction based on the document’s discernible content.

1. Discuss the building blocks of theory development as outlined by Whetten, focusing on the “What,” “How,” and “Why” elements.

In his 1989 editorial, David A. Whetten delineates the building blocks of theory development as essential components that transform mere descriptions into explanatory frameworks, akin to constructing a coherent story about organizational phenomena. The “What” element encompasses the factors, variables, constructs, or concepts central to the theory, emphasizing comprehensiveness—all relevant elements must be included—while maintaining parsimony to exclude superfluous ones. For instance, in organizational theory, this might involve identifying key variables like leadership style and employee motivation.

The “How” builds on this by specifying the relationships among these factors, often visualized through diagrams of causal links or interactions. Whetten stresses that “How” addresses connectivity, such as whether relationships are linear, reciprocal, or moderated, ensuring the theory maps out dynamics rather than static lists.

The “Why,” arguably the most critical, provides the underlying logic or rationale that justifies the “What” and “How,” drawing on psychological, economic, or social principles to make the theory compelling and plausible. Without a robust “Why,” a theory remains descriptive, failing to explain underlying mechanisms; for example, why does transformational leadership enhance motivation? Whetten argues this element compels readers to rethink assumptions, fostering insight.

These blocks interlink: starting with “What,” theorists refine “How” and ground both in “Why.” Whetten’s framework aids pedagogical clarity, helping scholars avoid incomplete theories and promoting rigorous, value-added contributions in management studies.

2. Explain how Whetten differentiates between comprehensiveness and parsimony in the context of theoretical factors (“What”) and relationships (“How”).

Whetten distinguishes comprehensiveness and parsimony as dual criteria for robust theory, balancing inclusivity with efficiency in the “What” and “How” elements. Comprehensiveness in “What” requires incorporating all relevant factors to avoid omissions that undermine explanatory power; for example, a theory of organizational performance must include not just internal resources but external environmental variables. Similarly, in “How,” it demands fully articulating interconnections, ensuring no critical links are missed.

Parsimony, conversely, insists on simplicity: excluding irrelevant factors or overly complex relationships to prevent convolution. Whetten warns that excessive elements dilute focus, making theories harder to test or apply. For “What,” this means justifying additions or deletions—adding a factor like culture only if it enhances explanation without redundancy. In “How,” parsimony favors straightforward models over intricate ones unless complexity is warranted.

This tension ensures theories are neither underdeveloped nor bloated, promoting falsifiability and utility. Whetten illustrates that good theories, like well-cast nets, capture essentials without excess, drawing on Polanyi (1962) to underscore this balance as foundational to theoretical elegance.

3. Critically analyze the role of the “Why” component in Whetten’s model of theory building and its importance in making theories compelling.

The “Why” component in Whetten’s model is pivotal, serving as the justificatory core that elevates theory from correlation to causation, rendering it intellectually compelling. It encompasses the deeper logics—psychological, social, or economic—that explain why selected factors (“What”) relate in specified ways (“How”). Critically, “Why” challenges assumptions, compelling readers to accept the theory’s plausibility; without it, theories are mere data patterns, lacking explanatory depth.

Strengths include fostering insight: Whetten argues “Why” provokes “aha” moments, as in questioning why hierarchy persists in flat organizations. It also guards against superficiality, aligning with scientific norms of rationale over description.

Weaknesses arise in subjectivity: determining a strong “Why” can be interpretive, potentially biasing toward dominant paradigms. Moreover, in interdisciplinary fields, integrating diverse “Whys” (e.g., economic vs. sociological) risks inconsistency.

Overall, “Why” is indispensable for compelling theories, as Whetten posits, because it bridges abstraction and reality, enabling critique and advancement. Its absence leads to rejections, underscoring its role in theoretical rigor.

4. How does Whetten incorporate contextual boundaries (“Who, Where, When”) into theory development, and what are their implications for generalizability?

Whetten integrates “Who, Where, When” as contextual boundaries that define a theory’s scope, initially as assumptions but crucial for application and testing. “Who” specifies actors (e.g., executives vs. frontline workers), “Where” denotes settings (e.g., cultural or industry contexts), and “When” temporal conditions (e.g., crisis periods).

These elements limit generalizability, preventing overclaims: a theory effective in startups (“Where”) may fail in mature firms. Implications include enhanced precision—refining boundaries broadens applicability (generalizing) or narrows it (specifying contingencies). Whetten notes they evolve from assumptions to variables in empirical work, aiding falsifiability.

This approach implies theories are not universal but conditional, promoting humility and incremental refinement. By addressing these, theorists avoid vague abstractions, making contributions more robust and relevant to diverse organizational realities.

5. Evaluate Whetten’s metaphor of theory as a “story” about organizational phenomena, including its strengths in pedagogical terms.

Whetten’s metaphor of theory as a “story” about why acts, events, structures, and thoughts occur in organizations effectively demystifies theory building, portraying it as narrative construction with plot (relationships), characters (factors), and theme (rationale). Strengths pedagogically include accessibility: it simplifies complex processes for novices, encouraging holistic thinking over fragmented analysis. For instance, a “story” must be coherent and engaging, mirroring Whetten’s call for compelling, insightful theories.

It also highlights explanatory over descriptive focus, akin to a story’s moral (“Why”). This aids teaching by linking to everyday cognition, fostering creativity in PhD training.

Critiques include potential oversimplification: stories can be subjective or anecdotal, risking rigor loss. Nonetheless, the metaphor’s pedagogical value lies in bridging abstract theory with intuitive understanding, enhancing AMR’s editorial guidance.

6. Discuss what constitutes a legitimate value-added contribution to existing theories according to Whetten, with examples from improvements to “What” or “How.”

A legitimate value-added contribution, per Whetten, improves existing theories substantively without reinventing them, focusing on enhancements to building blocks. It must be insightful, useful, and justified, challenging assumptions or expanding scope.

For “What,” adding/deleting factors: e.g., incorporating “sustainability” into resource-based view theories adds value if it explains competitive advantages better, provided parsimony is maintained.

For “How,” refining relationships: e.g., shifting from linear to curvilinear links in stress-performance theories (inverted-U) adds nuance, improving predictive accuracy.

Contributions also include bolstering “Why” with new logics or adjusting boundaries for broader applicability. Whetten emphasizes propositions to clarify implications, ensuring falsifiability. Legitimacy stems from non-triviality—minor tweaks without rationale are rejected—promoting cumulative progress in management.

7. Critically examine Whetten’s views on the use of propositions in theoretical papers and when they are necessary.

Whetten views propositions as tools to articulate relationships and implications, not universally required but valuable for clarity and challenge. They derive logically from building blocks, calling assumptions into question, and facilitate testing.

Critically, strengths include structuring arguments: propositions make theories falsifiable, aiding empirical follow-up. Necessary when relationships are complex, e.g., in multi-level theories, to avoid ambiguity.

Weaknesses: rigid formats may stifle creativity; Whetten notes not all papers need them, allowing flexibility for critiques or integrations. Overemphasis risks formulaic writing, but he balances this by prioritizing substance.

Overall, propositions are necessary for precision in relational theories, enhancing value but not mandating uniformity.

8. How can adding or deleting factors from an existing theory enhance its value, as per Whetten’s guidelines? Provide illustrations.

Adding factors enhances value by increasing comprehensiveness if justified by new insights; deleting promotes parsimony by removing redundancies. Whetten requires rationale via “Why” to avoid arbitrariness.

Illustration: Adding “digital disruption” to Porter’s five forces deletes outdated assumptions, refining “What” for modern contexts.

Deleting: In expectancy theory, removing minor moderators simplifies “How” without loss, improving applicability.

Such modifications must demonstrate improved explanation or utility, ensuring incremental advancement.

9. Evaluate the importance of falsifiability and usefulness in Whetten’s criteria for strong theoretical contributions.

Falsifiability and usefulness are cornerstone criteria in Whetten’s framework, ensuring theories are testable and impactful. Falsifiability, echoing Popper, demands propositions amenable to disproof, preventing unfalsifiable claims and linking theory to empirics.

Usefulness extends to generating hypotheses or informing practice, making contributions relevant beyond academia.

Importance: They combat redundancy, as non-falsifiable theories lack rigor, and useless ones fail “So what?” evaluations. Together, they elevate management as a science, though balancing with creativity remains challenging.

10. Discuss Whetten’s emphasis on challenging assumptions in the “Why” component as a means to add value to theories.

Whetten emphasizes challenging “Why” assumptions to add value, as it exposes flaws and introduces novel logics, fostering innovation. By questioning underlying rationales—e.g., why agency theory assumes opportunism— theorists refine or replace them, enhancing plausibility.

This approach values critiques that propose alternatives, promoting dialogue. It adds value by making theories more robust, adaptable, and insightful, aligning with scientific progress through falsification and refinement.

11. Explain Whetten’s advocacy for making theory development more incremental and collaborative in management studies.

Whetten advocates incremental theory development as cumulative building on existing work, rather than isolated novelty, to advance the field collectively. Collaborative aspects involve explicit connections to prior theories, fostering a “community of scholars” via dialogues in journals like AMR.

This counters fragmentation, encouraging refinements like boundary adjustments. It makes progress sustainable, with reviewers assessing value-added increments, ultimately enriching management knowledge through shared evolution.

12. Critically analyze how Whetten suggests authors connect new work to prior theories to foster incremental progress.

Whetten suggests authors explicitly link new contributions to antecedents, showing extensions or refinements, to build incrementally. This involves citing how “What/How/Why” builds on predecessors, avoiding redundancy.

Critically, it promotes rigor but risks conservatism, stifling radical ideas. Strengths include clarity for reviewers, enhancing acceptance. Overall, it cultivates scholarly continuity, though flexibility for paradigm shifts is needed.

13. How does Whetten propose that reviewers evaluate manuscripts for incremental theoretical value rather than absolute novelty?

Whetten proposes reviewers assess value by “What’s new?” and “So what?”—gauging substantive improvements like refined logics or scopes, not just originality. Incremental value lies in usefulness and insight, even if modest.

This shifts focus from groundbreaking to progressive, using criteria like parsimony to judge enhancements, ensuring constructive feedback and field advancement.

14. Discuss the role of critiques in incremental theory development, including Whetten’s recommendation to propose alternatives.

Critiques play a vital role in incremental development by identifying flaws in assumptions or scopes, paving refinement. Whetten recommends proposing remedies over mere criticism, as in historical examples like Freudian critiques.

This constructive approach adds value, fostering alternatives that build cumulatively, turning negatives into progress and enriching theoretical dialogues.

15. Evaluate the potential challenges in achieving incremental theory building in a field like organizational studies, drawing on Whetten’s insights.

Challenges include redundancy, where papers rehash without addition, and disconnection from literature, per Whetten. Interdisciplinary fragmentation hinders collaboration, while pressure for novelty discourages increments.

Evaluation: Whetten’s framework mitigates via explicit linkages, but institutional biases (e.g., publication norms) persist. Strengths lie in promoting community, though overcoming ego-driven isolation requires cultural shifts.

16. Critically analyze common reasons for rejection of theoretical papers as identified by Whetten, such as lack of interest or redundancy.

Whetten identifies rejections for uninteresting topics (narrow appeal, no “So what?”), redundancy (repeating knowns), disconnection (isolated from literature), and triviality (minor tweaks).

Critically, these ensure quality but may bias toward trendy topics, stifling niche work. Lack of interest often subjective; redundancy combats plagiarism but overlooks subtle nuances. Overall, criteria uphold rigor, though fairness demands clear guidelines.

17. Apply Whetten’s framework to a real-world organizational theory (e.g., resource dependence theory) and assess its theoretical contribution.

Resource dependence theory (RDT) by Pfeffer and Salancik fits Whetten’s framework: “What” includes dependencies on external resources; “How” details interorganizational strategies like mergers; “Why” roots in power imbalances.

Assessment: Comprehensive yet parsimonious, RDT adds value by explaining uncertainty management, with boundaries in inter-firm contexts. Its contribution is incremental, building on exchange theories, offering falsifiable propositions useful for strategy research.

18. Discuss the implications of Whetten’s guidelines for theory critiques, particularly the need for remedies over mere fault-finding.

Whetten’s guidelines imply critiques should be constructive, proposing alternatives to flaws for incremental value. This elevates discourse from destructive to productive, as remedies (e.g., revised “Why”) advance knowledge.

Implications: Encourages balanced scholarship, reducing adversarialism and fostering collaboration in management.

19. How might Whetten’s building blocks be applied to integrate disparate theories in management research?

Whetten’s blocks facilitate integration by aligning “What/How/Why” across theories: identify overlapping factors, harmonize relationships, and synthesize rationales. E.g., integrating institutional and resource-based views by adding legitimacy to “What,” linking via “How,” grounded in dual “Why” of survival.

This creates cohesive frameworks, enhancing comprehensiveness and value in fragmented fields.

20. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Whetten’s approach to theory building in addressing interdisciplinary challenges in organizational studies.

Strengths: Flexible blocks accommodate diverse perspectives, promoting synthesis via “Why” integration. Pedagogical clarity aids cross-discipline communication.

Weaknesses: Assumes shared ontologies, potentially overlooking epistemological clashes; parsimony may exclude rich interdisciplinary nuances.

Overall, strong for challenges, but needs adaptation for deep integration.

21. Compare Whetten’s model of theory development with Dubin’s (1978) approach to theory building, highlighting key similarities and differences.

Both Whetten and Dubin emphasize structured theory building. Similarities: Units/variables (“What”) and interactions (“How”) align; both stress boundaries and propositions for falsifiability.

Differences: Dubin’s eight-step, quantitative method (units, laws, boundaries, states, propositions, indicators, hypotheses, testing) is more prescriptive and empirical-focused, while Whetten’s is pedagogical, narrative-driven with “Why” for plausibility. Dubin suits applied disciplines; Whetten, conceptual refinement.

22. Critically reflect on how Whetten’s editorial influences the standards for theoretical submissions in journals like the Academy of Management Review.

Whetten’s editorial sets benchmarks via clear criteria, influencing AMR by prioritizing value-added, incremental work. Reflection: It democratizes standards, aiding authors, but may standardize too rigidly, limiting innovation. Positively, it elevates quality, shaping norms for insightful, useful theories.

23. Discuss the relevance of Whetten’s “What/How/Why” framework in comparison to Weick’s (1989) views on theory construction.

Whetten’s framework is structured, focusing on elements for explanatory coherence. Weick’s “disciplined imagination” emphasizes evolutionary processes: variation (imagination), selection (critique), retention (representation), using metaphors.

Relevance: Whetten’s complements Weick by providing building blocks for Weick’s imaginative phase, but Whetten is more prescriptive, while Weick allows reflexivity. Together, they balance structure and creativity in theory.

24. How does Whetten’s emphasis on parsimony align with or diverge from Merton’s (1967) concept of middle-range theories?

Whetten’s parsimony—simplifying factors/relationships—aligns with Merton’s middle-range theories, which are specific, testable bridges between grand abstractions and empirics, avoiding overcomplexity.

Divergence: Merton focuses on empirical integration; Whetten on conceptual elegance. Alignment strengthens both in promoting focused, applicable theories in sociology/management.

25. Reflect on the broader impact of Whetten’s paper on pedagogy in theory-building courses for PhD students.

Whetten’s paper impacts pedagogy by offering a simple, memorable framework, used in courses to teach theory via questions like “What’s new?” Reflection: It empowers students with tools for critique and construction, fostering confidence, though over-reliance may limit exposure to alternative methods.

26. Compare the value-added criteria in Whetten’s work to those implied in Kaplan’s (1964) discussions on scientific explanation.

Whetten’s criteria (insightful, useful, falsifiable) echo Kaplan’s emphasis on systematic explanation, observation, and values in behavioral science.

Comparison: Both value explanatory depth over description; Kaplan adds methodological rigor (e.g., inquiry logic), while Whetten focuses on incremental additions. Implied in Kaplan: explanations must be testable, aligning with Whetten’s usefulness.

27. Critically analyze whether Whetten’s framework adequately addresses the role of empirical testing in theoretical contributions.

Whetten’s framework prioritizes conceptual building, with falsifiability implying testing, but doesn’t detail empirics, focusing on propositions as bridges.

Critically: Adequate for pure theory but weak in integration—assumes testing follows, potentially overlooking feedback loops. Strength: Encourages testable theories; inadequacy lies in separation from data-driven refinement.

28. Discuss how Whetten’s guidelines could be adapted to evaluate theoretical contributions in emerging fields like digital transformation in organizations.

Adapt Whetten’s by expanding “Who/Where/When” to digital contexts (e.g., AI actors, virtual settings, rapid timelines). Evaluate value via “Why” on tech logics.

This adapts for emergence, ensuring contributions address novelty while maintaining parsimony, e.g., integrating platform theories with boundaries for scalability.

29. Reflect on the ethical implications of Whetten’s call for incremental theory development in preventing plagiarism or redundant research.

Whetten’s incrementalism ethically mandates crediting priors, reducing plagiarism via explicit connections. Reflection: It curbs redundancy by demanding value-add, promoting integrity, though challenges arise in defining “incremental” thresholds, risking unintentional overlaps.

30. Evaluate the extent to which Whetten’s paper has influenced modern theory-building practices, drawing on its core arguments.

Whetten’s core arguments—structured blocks, value-added focus—have influenced practices by standardizing evaluations in journals and curricula. Extent: Widely cited, it shapes incrementalism, though in fast-evolving fields, calls for more imaginative approaches (e.g., Weick) temper its dominance. Overall, enduring impact on rigor.