One of the most important features on which to judge the merit of any academic paper is the strength of its theory. Although commentary about what constitutes strong theory is widespread, there is no holistic account of the full range of existing perspectives. To address this oversight, I construct a typology composed of six dimensions of strong theory: importance, interestingness, actionability, generality, simplicity, and accuracy. This typology provides a lens to examine a vexing problem: the effort to increase the strength of a theory on one dimension will usually compromise its strength on others. Despite this reality, authors experience pressure in the review process to optimize theories on all six dimensions. I explain how the expectation to build theories that cannot possibly be built (what I call the fruitless search for unicorn theories) is driven by historical forces. The study of organizations emerged not from one source, but a half-dozen distinct traditions, including applied scientists who study time-sensitive problems, disciplinary scholars who identify universal laws of human behavior, and empiricists who prefer a tight link between concepts and measures. Review teams are often composed of referees who hail from different traditions and possess divergent views on theory. Even when each reviewer has concerns that are reasonable in isolation, authors often confront unrealistic expectations when reviewers’ preferences are aggregated. To mitigate this problem, I recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors (1) prioritize fewer dimensions in any single theory, and (2) emphasize distinct dimensions in different theories on the same topic.
Andrew Carton (Wed,) studied this question.