Theoretical contribution for PhD

1. 1
Making a theoretical contribution in
empirical research
Jim Combs
University of Alabama
August 10, 2011

2. 2
My simple definition of theory:
A theory is a set of assumptions and the causal
logic that explains the relationships among
constructs (not variables).
CEO
Incentives
Risk
Taking
Value of
stock options
Number of large
acquisitions
Constructs:
Variables:
Theory

3. 3
Why does theory matter?
• Philosophical Answer:
• Theory explains empirical relationships.
• Without it, we would need to memorize all
empirical relationships and try to draw our
own conclusions about the world.
• Theories influence human behavior.

4. 4
Why does theory matter?
•Practical Answer:
•Most, if not all, management journals want a
theoretical explanation for empirical
relationships.
•AMJ demands and other journals (JoM) desire
an actual contribution to theory.

5. 5
What Theory is not: Naming
• Naming the theory and citing those who either
developed or tested the theory is not the same
as contributing to it.
• “your theory development might be characterized as a list of
papers….the analytical set-up for this type of research –or
any other—needs more than lists of papers and arguments”
(AMJ Reviewer)
• “whereas you name four theories as the focus of your study,
you neither justify their use nor clearly explain how your
research contributes to any or all of these theories” (AMJ
Decision Letter)

6. 6
What Theory is not: Studying the under-studied
• Just because something hasn’t been studied
much doesn’t mean it hasn’t been studied at all.
“You make some bold statements about prior
literature…. For example, you suggest that
“strategy research is deficient,” “the strategy
literature has largely neglected …” “no significant
study has included…,” and so on. However, your
theory development is somewhat vague about the
nature of gaps in prior literature and how your
study fills these gaps.” (AMJ Reviewer, my
emphasis).

7. 7
What Theory is not: Testing Theory
Testing a theory and finding exactly
what the theory predicts (and others
have found) does not add anything new
to the theory.
• “Each of them [the hypotheses] is exactly
what we would expect to find (already know)
and as such are quite boring.” (AMJ
Reviewer)
• “Some of your findings are, for example, the
eco-system level is a source of value creation;
individuals are necessary to create value in
an eco system; persistence and diversity are
important; etc. Now these are all very
interesting, but not entirely surprising.” (AMJ
Reviewer)

8. 8
What Theory is not: Empirical Contribution
• Testing or finding something that has
not been tested or found might offer
an empirical contribution, but it is not
alone a theoretical contribution.
• “Your paper would make a much stronger contribution
worthy of AMJ papers if you repositioned it with respect
to a theoretical, rather than an empirical contribution”
(AMJ Reviewer).
• “…the claimed contribution seems to rest on measure
and analytical differences. Certainly, it is important to
provide better evidence, even replication, but it is unclear
to me whether AMJ should publish it.” (AMJ Reviewer).

9. 9
Common Types of Theoretical
Contributions
• Identifying factors that moderate or mediate key
relationships (e.g., Miller & Shamsie, 1996, AMJ; Baum &
Wally, 2003, SMJ).
Resource
type
Performance
Environment
Environment Decision
making
speed
Performance

10. 10
Common Types of Theoretical
Contributions
• Applying a theory to explain a complex relationship
(i.e., Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1999, ASQ).
• Developing the logic that
reconciles predictions from
competing theories (e.g., Combs
& Skill, 2003, AMJ: Deephouse, 1999, SMJ)

11. 11
Common Types of Theoretical
Contributions
• Extending a theory to explain a phenomenon
where it has not previously been applied
(Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007, ASQ; Combs, Michael, Castrogiovanni,
2009, JoM)
• Or a new phenomenon(Cowen & Marcel, 2011, AMJ)
• Explaining a theory’s boundary conditions
(e.g., Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2004, SMJ; Shervani, Frazier, &
Challagalla, 2007, SMJ)

12. 12
Common Types of Theoretical
Contributions
• Developing logic to explain a phenomena
that is not consistent (or seems inconsistent)
with a theory (Knott, 2003, SMJ; Sanders & Hambrick, 2007,
AMJ).
• Introducing a new construct
and explaining how it relates
to important constructs
(Finkelstein & Boyd, 1998, AMJ; Baker &
Nelson, 2005, ASQ)

13. 13
The introduction is the most important section!
• “it was not apparent how this study advances management
theory and practice.”
• “In my view, this paper emerges without a compelling
motivation.”
• “the core topic of the paper is not motivated well…it is not
clear why this study is needed.”
• “Why would we be interested in this study? You tell us what
you did but not why you did it.”
• “it is not clear what the gap that you are trying to address is
and what motivates you to address it.”
Doing it

14. 14
Justification & Set-up (aka Introduction)
•Hardest section to write
•Explain exactly
• ‘what we know’
• ‘what we need to know’
• Why is it important to know this
• how your paper will close the gap
•Don’t get fancy (until later)!
Doing it

15. 15
Finding the “Gap”
• You must be the content expert
• Dissertation: The next question comes from the knowledge frontier
• If you have data:
• Get out on the knowledge frontier
• Dig!!!
• When you find something, ask:
• Is it interesting
• Can it be made interesting
Doing it

16. 16
Process issues
• In most cases, you want to draw upon concepts
that we already have and use only one theory.
• Theory dictates constructs and measures.
• Define concepts and stay consistent (Duane
Ireland on: considerably vs. substantially)
• Avoid ‘argumentation by citation’
• Developing theory is hard work – get feedback
from skilled colleagues
• Position the paper in the journal you are pursuing
• Take naps
Doing it

17. 17
Good References: Writing
• Bem, D. J. 1987. Writing the empirical journal article. In M. P.
Zanna and J. M. Darley (Eds.), The compleat academic: 171-201.
New York: Random House.
• Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Silva, P. J. 2007. How to write a lot: A practical guide to
productive academic writing, APA.
• Daft, R. L. (1995). Why I recommended that your manuscript be
rejected and what you can do about it. Publishing in the
Organizational Sciences. L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

18. 18
Good References: Theory
• Davis, M. (1971). "That’s interesting." Philosophy of Social
Science, 1: 309-344.
• Bacharach, S. B. (1989). "Organizational theories: Some criteria
for evaluation." Academy of Management Review, 14: 496-515.
• Sutton, R. I. and B. M. Staw (1995). "What Theory is Not."
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.
• Whetten, D. A. (1989). "What constitutes a theoretical
contribution?" Academy of Management Review, 14: 490-495.
• Look at up-coming “From the Editors” at AMJ.

19. 19
Yes, it is hard work but you can
do it.

20. 20
Survey of JOB board members (n=101)
• The prestige of the person's 2%
doctoral granting institution
• The professional status of 8
the person's mentor
• Luck 3
• Hard work 61
• The quality of one's doctoral training 24
• The quality of colleagues in the 3
department where the person works
_____________________________________________
Which of the following do you believe is the
MOST important determinant of a person's
level of success as a researcher in the
organizational sciences?

21. 21
Writing Theory is
•Valuable
•Rare
•Difficult to Imitate
•No substitutes

22. 22
Thank you for your valuable time!