Meaningful Theoretical Pathways for Research Contributions

Across fields of scholarship, ever since scholarship has existed, there have been numerous discussions opining on what theory is, why it is useful and how best to craft theoretical arguments and frameworks. Every few years, a new discussion particularly relevant to a domain of study emerges. Often the intention of such discussions is to reiterate critical points made in the past as still applicable. In other instances, the discussions attempt to recast and reshape perspectives on theory. Both reiteration and alternate perspectives can prove valuable, as new scholars enter the field and as priorities for journals, editors and review teams evolve. These points are also of interest to contemporary discussions at the Journal of Operations Management (JOM). As an outlet long regarded for impactful empirical work in the field, we have long been interested in the appropriate use of theory and have also had a long history of intervening in our field to re-emphasize the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of meaningful theoretical structures and argumentation. As editors of the journal, we believe it is valuable to reiterate what is well-accepted regarding the role and nature of effective theory in research, whether we are discussing grand theories, theoretical frameworks, mid-range theory or theoretical arguments for specific mechanisms. However, we also strongly believe that it is critically valuable to outline how theoretical contributions may differ, while still offering considerable value to a research effort and the field. What is core to the substantive nature of theoretical contributions, of course, must be driven by priorities regarding its role; just as the selection of empirical methods must be driven by the claims emerging from theoretical arguments (even nascent ones), and insights for future scholars driven by observation and analysis. By outlining contemporary priorities that define meaningful theory we are in a far better position to simultaneously expand perspectives on how theoretical contributions can be made, as well as challenge or dispel some often difficult-to-justify criticisms that scholars (authors, reviewers and editors) confront regarding what is ‘good’ theory. Models with excellent fit tell us little about the data-generating mechanisms… A well-fitting factor model cannot be taken as evidence that a psychological construct… exists…. Similarly, a network model with good fit to the data cannot tell us where we need to intervene in a causal system. (Fried (2020), 275) According to Fried (2020), this “statistical equivalency” is one of the fundamental reasons that we cannot escape the need for well-reasoned theoretical arguments, designed to help us make sense of highly complex settings, in which a wealth of observed signals is accompanied by a wealth of unobserved signals. It is exactly when phenomena are not straightforward and mechanisms are not obvious, where sensemaking, and associated deliberate research inquiry, is critical. In the same vein, a ‘complete theory’, akin to a physical law, doesn't present much of a motivator for research—if there is no uncertainty regarding cause and effect, there is little reason to expect that an inquiry into such phenomena would be of interest to a research community. Fortunately, in the domains that are studied in management, we seldom come close to complete theories. Occasionally we find enough evidence to corroborate what we might refer to as grand theories and associated frameworks. More often, we observe, or perceive, phenomena that exhibit patterns (either across a body of literature or direct observations in the field) that inspire us to question whether such patterns are repeatable. Indeed, theories are never finished products but rather exist along a continuum of sensemaking from vague hunches to detailed accounts of causal mechanism (Mohr 1982; Weick 1989), where the initial phases of theorizing often include the creation or definition of constructs and narratives to account for the observed phenomenon. With the rise of replication discussions so prominent today, it would be a mistake to forget that methods are merely a means to an end, that they are bound to be imperfectly replicable in observations and analyses they yield. The most critical aspect of replication comes down to whether we can reinforce existing understanding, or whether such attempts at sensemaking require modification, qualification or replacement. That should be the primacy of replication interest for research communities; with a possible exception for communities focused on methodological contributions. Similarly, researchers certainly must be permitted to demonstrate thought that aligns with (replicates) existing theoretical arguments, based on the identification of repeated insights from whatever source, just as they must be permitted to deviate from such arguments if the patterns they encounter do not align. In the complex contexts that characterize management research domains, it is not helpful to expect scholars to identify universal laws, nor is it appropriate to bind them to recognizing or aligning with claims that others have made to that end. Furthermore, it should be noted that not all theoretical arguments (hypotheses or propositions) are created equal. There are potential explanations that are clearly better than others. How do we assess the quality of a potential explanation? Bunge (1967), articulates the desired attributes of well-formulated scientific hypotheses as (1) logically sound, (2) grounded in previous knowledge, and (3) empirically testable. We believe that the quality of a conjecture can be judged by the extent to which it fulfills these criteria.1 Thus, while two alternative explanations might be equally capable of explaining the data, we can easily assess which has more scientific credibility based on those criteria, for example, ‘a hard object hit and broke the glass’ versus ‘a soft object hit and broke the glass.’ If we accept the three points listed above as fundamental to the value and role of theory and the desirable attributes of claims, it is also clear, based on our experience with the editorial process, that certain misconceptions regarding what makes “good theory” continue to exist. We outline a few of these fallacies here, along with why they must be deemed to be fundamentally flawed. False claim: “Theoretical arguments must explicitly cite existing ‘named’ theories” Why is it False? While reference to extant work is important as a means of emphasizing contribution, and while research is expected to build off of the ideas and observations of existing work, thus positioning a research effort and serving as an argument for fit with a journal, its departments or special issue efforts, the logic of theoretical arguments should stand on their own. Reference to extant ‘named’ theories can be useful as reinforcement examples and analogy but are secondary (Ketokivi, Mantere, and Cornelissen 2017). The best theoretical arguments, regardless of what serves as their grounding, demonstrate meaningful backings (named or otherwise) and thoughtful considerations of how associated warrants might be qualified as claims are developed, regardless of whether analogous claims exist elsewhere (Toulmin 1958/2003; Ketokivi and Mantere 2021). A good test of a strong theory is to strip away reference to ‘named’ theories; if the arguments are strong, they should remain strong in that absence. Along similar lines, there is no expectation that all tenets of cited theory must be drawn upon for effective theoretical argument development. As even ‘named’ theories remain speculative, not all aspects of such theories will always prove relevant. The job of a researcher is deliberately select what backings can be most useful in developing their warrants. That implies that ‘kitchen-sink’ approaches to drawing on theory should never exist as de facto expectations. False claim: “Theoretical arguments cannot draw on more than X ‘named’ theories” Why is it False? Related to the prior point, if extant ‘named’ theories serve predominantly as vehicles for supporting arguments, as examples or analogy, and remain secondary to actual theoretical argumentation, there is no reasonable rationale to enforce a limit on the diversity of such support. Certainly, all authors are encouraged to make each of their points in a parsimonious manner, however that is a matter of exposition rather than theoretical construction. False claim: “Theoretical arguments must comprehensively capture all possible mechanisms that could provide alternative arguments for what has or might be observed” Why is it False? If all mechanisms could be accounted for, arguments would cease to be theoretical and associated research (at least empirical research) would not be warranted; much in the same way that the re-examination of a specific theoretical argument might be the purview of replication research, rather than novel contribution. Theoretical arguments regarding mechanisms are important, and the recognition of alternative explanations and counterarguments can demonstrate ample consideration by researchers, however, even alternative explanations are only ‘possible’ pathways. They are seldom ‘laws’, and if those pathways have not themselves been sufficiently investigated there is no reason to place them on a pedestal higher than the arguments posed by a research team (provided those are sound). Valuing theoretical arguments as motivators for work should allow a range of research efforts to be motivated, seek out evidence and contribute to discussions. False claim: “Theoretical arguments must focus on the same unit of analysis as the one used in empirical analysis” Why is it False? Clearly domains of management rely, at least in part, on the participation of individuals as decision makers, responding to signals and scenarios. Occasionally this fact is brushed over, and higher-level dynamics focused on, but unless we are studying a fully automated system, free of human involvement, we are in fact working with theory rather than laws. As long as this is the case, nearly all management theory must have human activity implicitly embedded within it. When developing theory regarding the relational dynamics within dyads of firms, while corporate level considerations are useful, drawing on individual level cognitive arguments must also be acceptable. A close read of Rousseau's (1985) classic discussion of units of analysis outlines the value of hierarchical perspectives, with lower-level units (e.g., human decision processes and action) subsumed within large units (e.g., organizational action and outcomes). While this perspective argues that variance at lower levels occur at a more frequent unit of time than those at higher levels, extrapolating upwards in unit scale is acceptable; empirically the risk of losing detail through aggregation exists, but no fundamental barrier to potential for theoretical increase in level exists. Similarly, when making arguments regarding the interactions of two firms, an empirical focus on the dynamics associated with one member of that dyad should also be deemed acceptable. Theoretical arguments must permit out-of-the-box extensions as well as more focused inquiry. False claim: “Theoretical arguments must be far more comprehensive in advance of a research plan than they are following observation and analysis” Why is it False? Some minimal level of upfront theoretical argumentation should be sufficient to motivate research, or tell the backstory of why research was done, but posteriori theoretical argumentation should not be ignored and in fact may be far more critical. To be clear, some degree of grounded theoretical argumentation should exist both at the front and back end of manuscripts. The scope of grounding and argumentation may be very different on each end. For example, the recognition of observed anomalies at the front end of the work may not only be a critical aspect motivating the deeper research inquiry, but it can represent research questions that inspire a considerable theory development effort following that deeper inquiry. However, no research effort begins in a vacuum of theory. Even if anomalies do not align with existing explanations, it is important to recognize these inadequate theoretical arguments in advance of an abductive process. In such instances, the ‘theoretical contribution’ of the work will be far more reliant on the back end rather than the front end, but the front end should set the stage. Having said that, even work for which theoretical arguments are front-loaded should afford time to posteriori theoretical considerations. Confronting these fallacies, understanding and rationalizing their flaws, is important for authors, but is equally important for reviewers and editors to consider as they work to promote the expansion of knowledge in their disciplines. We must remain focused on adding value recognizing what is and what is not of critical value in the research design, rather than getting tied up in false and unjustified expectations. Accordingly, every submission to JOM is first assessed, as per the aims and scope of the journal (wwwJOM-hub.com), on whether it is empirical and it makes a substantial contribution to theoretical and practical understanding in Operations Management. As we have outlined in an earlier editorial (Bendoly and Oliva 2024), doing empirical work in an operational context is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify as contribution. For a manuscript to fit the mission of JOM it must either test OM theoretical claims or derive insights that inform OM theory or practice (i.e., new claims that require independent testing or that provide normative guidance for practitioners). Thus, while upfront theoretical arguments that are based on non-OM theories (e.g., extra-disciplinary ‘named’ theories), or elemental theoretical backings, can be used to develop arguments and testable hypotheses, the full arguments themselves should be grounded in OM perspectives. Further, the empirical results should be leveraged deliberately to inform OM theoretical and practical understanding. We have found that hypotheses based on convoluted theoretical arguments aimed mainly at justifying the use of available data, are not as effective as simple but logical, arguments in supporting the development of insights from the results. Once more, hypotheses to be tested need to be assessed by their ability to further derive operational insights. In recognizing what is truly important when it comes to theory, and pushing aside concerns that are not ‘real’ concerns, we can now focus on the fruitful pathways available to authors as their embark on theoretical considerations in their work, and as reviewers and editors approach efforts to further develop such work. Figure 1 presents a generalization of two paths available to authors as they leverage observations and theory to build meaningful contributions to the field. The common path (Path A) that flows from left to right in Figure 1, often beginning with a more academic-literature inspired motivation, tends to have many recognizable attributes a front end theoretical positioning and a approach to from at least some posteriori theoretical discussion which we will research is by the identification of research made by of extant of knowledge, through grounded argumentation to While this is, by the most common of submission to this is clearly not the only approach scholars can and have taken in developing contributions. alternate path (Path and predominantly from empirical from right to left in the of Figure The observation of empirical which have not been fully by extant research, or the observation of phenomena that existing theories, the effort down the path of can we what we are rather than do we expect to our The of this not need to be fully theoretical it can be of constructs and to the observed by its very also an into abductive sensemaking, where we are theoretical arguments to how observations fit into a in that have not been In doing we are implicitly future observations in specific rather than existing observations to theoretical That is, the claims of such sensemaking arguments often the of with the that they are up by empirical efforts, alternate of evidence in of inquiry as can come in the of or a the of constructs and narratives to phenomena and the abductive of theoretical arguments that the outlined in 1 are as much as a contribution as the empirical testing of those How are these paths to research approaches that we across our of research at from for to to with the in developing of these could a theory back end with theory motivating approaches at of and certainly motivation, to some minimal at the front end as Figure presents the processes through which we theory inspired and the a range of empirical that make use of data from domain of JOM develop or theories about those processes and how they should be way of empirical efforts to and the processes and on the potential for the observed of Figure If the observed are not by existing theory or they anomalies from what is expected from the theory, we need to potential and this is in Figure 1 and is by the abductive if these even if not inspired by theoretical do existing theories and explanations, we can on the existing theory from the of specific A way of empirical is to test this place through attempt to the and the in of while the and of the the risk and of field efforts to are clearly of to all the in place at JOM and Oliva are not always possible and and or the is to some units but to are to either the claims if not increase their alternative way to test claims is to on explicitly for the study or from other data efforts causal claims through and These approaches a A and to the in Figure through one through the the for work, and the other of the fact that all observation and data is by the theoretical claims that are A way of empirical is to intervene theory to in that is, use the theory to provide While JOM has editorial not to focus on as contributions there is ample potential to about the and of a theory when to use it to or a The creation of the in JOM has the path to use to test and develop theory within the context of a where the researcher with as an of in the The fact that the might require to the and that are not often what was by the theory, the to new data from the processes that could to to the theory used to the As research A to the from an existing but the data from the to derive insights for theory (Path the created through in Figure of the empirical and the role of theoretical argumentation, both a and with different of on the is fundamental regardless of what we It specific but also clearly from others. role and are on what is but we much of it. the end of the in a scientific the to assess the contribution of an empirical study is its contribution to theory. If the is and we are only making sense of or clearly the of a new theory that can be tested is enough of a contribution. However, if the of the study is to test existing theory with secondary data or through and the from the study in the example, how theories need to be What are new research questions that are be these a for the contribution to be What all this for reviewers and As we have in the JOM editorial team all reviewers and their associated are to be is not it is a It is also not merely have very specific They identify of but make deliberate efforts to help authors up those The role of at is not that of role is not to provide an up or down role is that of substantial and should never merely for where that Furthermore, with specific to theory, a review should never merely for a theoretical should also not to the fallacies posed in such as a to sufficiently reference extant theory, or comprehensively mechanisms. If a relevant theory for use as analogy or and a is with that theoretical it is the job of the to be in the authors the consideration of that work. If a mechanism that the the authors should it is on the review to be regarding what that mechanism might If as a is but include that in review as such a clearly doesn't serve to help develop a There are on the of guidance and editors should regarding theory. For example, reviewers and editors should not for That is, it is for reviewers to an team to develop theoretical arguments to be a if the for such is based on results emerging from the existing analysis in the While some authors may recognize such as some may not and still others may it is the only way to through the review To be clear, such action on the of reviewers or editors is should help authors arguments that they have used to motivate their methods and analysis. It is also fully to position arguments posteriori in the interest of future In both instances, reviewers are to be in this offering specific rather than for However, that by the analysis be accounted for by the of new front end theoretical arguments if they a is not an path for reviewers to Furthermore, reviewers and editors need to be fully of the very that strong contributions can on a that not from an identification of a but rather from direct If we are to researchers at JOM and other to with we must that some of that is to to the recognition of and anomalies that have not been and that such observations are at least as important not more than drawn predominantly from extant work. We must be to these highly abductive paths taken by authors, while still authors to what is in the of thoughtful sensemaking that all for impactful theoretical contributions.