Discussion: View Thread

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria to evaluate theories in OB, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 296-306. (I also have the respective chapter from the four volume OB book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a domain within OB, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior

Aston Business School

Aston University, UK

Yves:

Hello! I would suggest looking at a special issue in AMR (1999). There are several that focus on particular mechanics within the theory building process (time, context, etc.). These articles have been particularly helpful to me... Good luck with your search!

Regards,

David

Calas, M. B., & Smricich, L. (1999). PAST POSTMODERNISM? REFLECTIONS AND TENTATIVE DIRECTIONS. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649-671. doi:Article  

Elsbach, K. D., Sutton, R. I., & Whetten, D. A. (1999). PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPING MANAGEMENT THEORY, CIRCA 1999: MOVING FROM SHRILL MONOLOGUES TO (RELATIVELY) TAME DIALOGUES. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 627-633. doi:Article  

Folger, R., & Turilo, C. J. (1999). THEORIZING AS THE THICKNESS OF THIN ABSTRACTION. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 742-758. doi:Article  

Langley, A. (1999). STRATEGIES FOR THEORIZING FROM PROCESS DATA. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. doi:Article  

Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. I. (1999). METATRIANGULATION: BUILDING THEORY FROM MULTIPLE PARADIGMS. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672-690. doi:Article  

Mckinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. (1999). DETERMINANTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOLS IN ORGANIZATION THEORY. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 634-648. doi:Article  

Morris, M. W., Kwok Leung, Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). VIEWS FROM THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE: INTEGRATING EMIC AND ETIC INSIGHTS ABOUT CULTURE AND JUSTICE JUDGMENT. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781-796. doi:Article  

Pentland, B. T. (1999). BUILDING PROCESS THEORY WITH NARRATIVE: FROM DESCRIPTION TO EXPLANATION. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724. doi:Article  

Tsang, E. W. K., & Kai-Man Kwan. (1999). REPLICATION AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCE: A CRITICAL REALIST PERSPECTIVE. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 759-780. doi:Article  

Weick, K. E. (1999). THEORY CONSTRUCTION AS DISCIPLINED REFLEXIVITY: TRADEOFFS IN THE 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 797-806. doi:Article  

Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). TIME SCALES AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 725-741. doi:Article  

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria to evaluate theories in OB, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 296-306. (I also have the respective chapter from the four volume OB book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a domain within OB, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior

Aston Business School

Aston University, UK

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria to evaluate theories in OB, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 296-306. (I also have the respective chapter from the four volume OB book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a domain within OB, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior

Aston Business School

Aston University, UK

Hi all,

Great suggestions; this is a wonderful list to have handy so please aggregate and send back out.

Arnon Reichers and I took a stab at how theory evolves that some have found useful in a paper we did on climate and culture:

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-39). Jossey-Bass.

Ben

Benjamin Schneider, Ph.D.

Senior Research Fellow, VALTERA

Professor Emeritus, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Maryland</st1:placename></st1:place>

1363 Caminito Floreo, Suite G

La Jolla, CA 92037

tel/fx: 858-488-7594

bschneider@valtera.com

VALTERA ®

Better Organizations Through Better Science ®

www.valtera.com

<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chicago</st1:place></st1:city> Corporate Office:

Valtera Corporation

<st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">1701 Golf Rd.</st1:address></st1:street>, 2-1100

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rolling Meadows</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">IL</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">60008-4257</st1:postalcode></st1:place>

www.valtera.com

This email and attachments, if included, may contain material that is

confidential. This material is intended for the sole use of the individual

or entity to whom it is addressed. If you received this message in error,

please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Keith Leavitt
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 6:45 AM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Criteria for theory evaluation

Hi Yves,

  If you're looking for criteria for comparing and evaluating theories

against one another (especially in terms of testing them empirically), might

I shamelessly promote a paper I have with Terry Mitchell and Jeff Peterson

entitled "Theory Pruning: Strategies to Reduce our Dense Theoretical

Landscape" currently in-press (and available on-line) at Organizational

Research Methods.

Regards,

   Keith

-----Original Message-----

From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv

[mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Guillaume, Yves

Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:18 PM

To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Subject: [OB-LIST] Criteria for theory evaluation

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria

to evaluate theories in <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place>, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a

taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging

organizational science. The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Management</st1:placename></st1:place> Review, 9, 296-306. (I

also have the respective chapter from the four volume <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place> book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Management</st1:placename></st1:place> Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Palo Alto</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state></st1:place>: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book

chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally

these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a

domain within <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place>, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a

summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Aston</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Business</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place>

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Aston University</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region></st1:place>

Friends,

I am not so clear about the meaning of theory evaluation! We develop the theories and we ourselves determine whether they are good or not!  Should we develop the taxonomy on which to base theory evaluation in a process mainly conducted by the outside "beneficiaries" of such theories?  This should be exactly how we do program assessment. We allow AACSB to do that for us, although AACSB is not really that much of an outsider. I also believe that the evaluation of all theories in OB and I/O should be mainly based on whether or not we "behavioral scientists ought to 'say something useful' to managers" (Peter Vaill, p. 11).  In the same book, Vaill also indicates that "American behavioral science has been –we have been- saying the wrong thing. For decades we have tried to say the wrong thing better and better, from within our disciplinary matrix we have had trouble saying anything else. As long as we continue to say the wrong thing –no matter how well we say it, no matter how 'reliably' and 'validly,' no matter how elegantly and mesmerically-it still will be the wrong thing. It will not feel right to the most honest ones among us, and it will not achieve any influence among practitioners" (Spirited Leading and Learning, p. 11).

So considering this relevancy issue (also dealt with very clearly by Mike Hitt years ago –don't remember the full reference but it was AMJ or AMR), we also must understand that a large number of theories that describe phenomena in socio-technical systems are subject to obsolescence due to the passage of time.  The question I have had for years now is how can we develop theories with a more useful message for practitioners out there? Medical scientists and technical/engineering researchers both have an easier time with this process than we do, mainly because we deal more with people who are not always as predictable!  And this is becoming more complex with the addition of globalization and cross-cultural issues!

Thanks,

Ivan

Hi Yves,

maybe a special issue of Personality and Social Psycholgy Review in 2004 could be of interest (vol. 8, issue 2). Different authors discuss their perspective good theory construction.

cheers,

Steffen

From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Guillaume, Yves
Sent: Friday, 19 March, 2010 02:18 AM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OB-LIST] Criteria for theory evaluation

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria to evaluate theories in OB, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 296-306. (I also have the respective chapter from the four volume OB book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a domain within OB, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior

Aston Business School

Aston University, UK

=

Disclaimer

De informatie verzonden in dit e-mail bericht inclusief de bijlage(n) is vertrouwelijk en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde van dit bericht. Lees verder: http://www.eur.nl/email-disclaimer.

The information in this e-mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Read more: http://www.eur.nl/english/email-disclaimer.

=

Ivan:

I appreciated your thoughts on our theory development work. Personally, most theory construction work in management strikes me as an effort to produce a better model of how an organization works effectively, much like a mathematical model of the economy or theory in physics. The unspoken epistemology at play here seems to assume a static ontology regarding the object of investigation, when in reality we are dealing with something much more dynamic. Hermeneutical approaches to work in the "social sciences" appear more fruitful to me. Here are a couple of sources that you might find interesting:

Betti, E. (1962). Die hermeneutik als allgemeine methode der geisteswissenschaften.  Tubingen: Mohr, 1962. (Hermeneutics as the general methodology of the social sciences. Translation in Bleicher, J. (1980). Contemporary hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as method, philosophy and critique.  London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, 51-94.

Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mantzavinos, C. (2008). Naturalistic hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warm regards,

Jim

James C. McHann, PhD

Professor of Strategy, Organizational Learning, and Change

Doctor of Management in Executive Leadership (DM) Program

Masters in Business Administration (MBA) Program

Walsh College of Accountancy and Business Administration

3838 Livernois Road

PO Box 7006

Troy, MI 48007-7006

248.823.1233 office

248.506.3196 cell

jmchann@walshcollege.edu

Friends,

I am not so clear about the meaning of theory evaluation! We develop the theories and we ourselves determine whether they are good or not!  Should we develop the taxonomy on which to base theory evaluation in a process mainly conducted by the outside "beneficiaries" of such theories?  This should be exactly how we do program assessment. We allow AACSB to do that for us, although AACSB is not really that much of an outsider. I also believe that the evaluation of all theories in OB and I/O should be mainly based on whether or not we "behavioral scientists ought to 'say something useful' to managers" (Peter Vaill, p. 11).  In the same book, Vaill also indicates that "American behavioral science has been –we have been- saying the wrong thing. For decades we have tried to say the wrong thing better and better, from within our disciplinary matrix we have had trouble saying anything else. As long as we continue to say the wrong thing –no matter how well we say it, no matter how 'reliably' and 'validly,' no matter how elegantly and mesmerically-it still will be the wrong thing. It will not feel right to the most honest ones among us, and it will not achieve any influence among practitioners" (Spirited Leading and Learning, p. 11).

So considering this relevancy issue (also dealt with very clearly by Mike Hitt years ago –don't remember the full reference but it was AMJ or AMR), we also must understand that a large number of theories that describe phenomena in socio-technical systems are subject to obsolescence due to the passage of time.  The question I have had for years now is how can we develop theories with a more useful message for practitioners out there? Medical scientists and technical/engineering researchers both have an easier time with this process than we do, mainly because we deal more with people who are not always as predictable!  And this is becoming more complex with the addition of globalization and cross-cultural issues!

Thanks,

Ivan

Hi Yves,

maybe a special issue of Personality and Social Psycholgy Review in 2004 could be of interest (vol. 8, issue 2). Different authors discuss their perspective good theory construction.

cheers,

Steffen

From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Guillaume, Yves
Sent: Friday, 19 March, 2010 02:18 AM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OB-LIST] Criteria for theory evaluation

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria to evaluate theories in OB, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 296-306. (I also have the respective chapter from the four volume OB book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a domain within OB, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior

Aston Business School

Aston University, UK

=

Disclaimer

De informatie verzonden in dit e-mail bericht inclusief de bijlage(n) is vertrouwelijk en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde van dit bericht. Lees verder: http://www.eur.nl/email-disclaimer.

The information in this e-mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Read more: http://www.eur.nl/english/email-disclaimer.

=

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for your many and very helpful suggestions. Please find attached the aggregated list.

Best wishes,

y.

From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Guillaume, Yves
Sent: Friday, 19 March, 2010 02:18 AM
To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OB-LIST] Criteria for theory evaluation

Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for published articles or book chapters that discuss criteria to evaluate theories in OB, I&O- or Social Psychology, and that develop a taxonomy on the basis of which such theories could be evaluated.

The following I came across already:

Miner, J. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 296-306. (I also have the respective chapter from the four volume OB book series).

Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496-515.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

I was wondering however whether you know of any more recent articles or book chapters with a stronger emphasis on I/O and Social Psychology. Ideally these criteria should have been used in other publications to evaluate a domain within OB, I&O or Social Psychology.

Your help on this is very much appreciated. I will collate and share a summary of your suggestions.

Kind Regards,

Yves Guillaume, PhD

Lecturer in Organizational Behavior
Aston Business School
Aston University, UK