When talking about research, authors have to make sure their studies have both theoretical and managerial contribution. Theoretical contribution means that something innovative is added into the existing theory; managerial contribution means that research question can be utilized in the real environment.
How to make a theoretical contribution?
What. First of all, author has to decide what factors (variables, constructs, concepts) should be considered as part of explanation of the phenomena of interest.
- The phenomena should be non-trivial in scope and is not obvious to explain. The result should be expected to be relevant to real life. Adding one or two variables to existing theory or adding together previously studied phenomena in one project doesn’t make any theoretical contributions.
- The article shows mastery over previous research in the area. If either the most classic or the latest (within past five years) literature is not cited by the author, reviewers will become panic. The thorough review of the literature makes sure that those significant variables are not ignored.
- Two criteria to include factors: comprehensiveness (are all relevant and important factors included?) and parsimony (should some factors be deleted because they add little explanation power?).
- Those variables and constructs should be clearly, precisely and succinctly defined. Authors have to inform reviews that they have developed these thoughts over a long period of time.
How. Next, one has to define how the factors are related; this is completed by linking the identified factors through arrows. With What and How in mind, author is able to draw a figure representing the model.
- All independent, dependent, mediating, moderating variables are clearly specified. Hypotheses are the verbal representation of these relationships, so they should be aligned properly and generate no confusion.
There are several situations that they cannot be regarded as theory-building,
- References are not theory. Simply citing references without providing necessary elaboration should be avoided. [According to Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), usefulness and ease of use are included in our model.] Author should explicate why the theory lead to the choice of factors and the relationships between them.
- Data are not theory. Referring to previous empirical results cannot be used as theoretical foundation because the relationship is possible to be significant even though the internal logic is not clear. [Previous empirical studies show that usefulness and ease of use have significant impact on adoption of NSD tools (A; B; C; D), so we claim that…] The qualitative evidence cannot convey causal arguments that are abstract and simple enough to be applied to other settings; in short, they don’t explain Why.
- Lists of variables or constructs are not theory. A theory-driven study should explain why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected.
- Diagrams are not theory. Again, diagrams or figures do not explain why. They are good representation of the theory but they cannot substitute it.
- Hypotheses are not theory. Hypotheses do not (and should not) contain logical arguments about why empirical relationships are expected to occur. They are concise statements about what is expected to occur.
What factors are considered in judging conceptual papers?
What’s new? It is not satisfactory either to point out limitations in current conceptions of a theory’s range of application or to apply an old model to a new setting, unless such modification alter extant views in important ways. The new theory or model should offer novel insights. It teaches readers and researchers something new, something they could not have learned elsewhere.
So what? Good theory should change either business or research practices.
Why so? The underlining logic and supporting evidence should be compelling. All in all, Why is the most important part in the theoretical paper.
Well done? Good paper should reflect seasoned thinking, conveying completeness and thoroughness. Author can present a clear, strong punch line early in the manuscript. Be bold and tell reviewers why they should be excited about the manuscript.
Done well? Write the paper clearly, logically and use plain language.
Why now? Paper should be able to advance current discussions, stimulate new discussions, or revitalize old discussions.
Who cares? Paper should have impact on a large percentage of audience.
Hypotheses developing templates
(1) Why you choose this independent variable to explain the phenomenon of interest?
(2) Its relationship to the dependent variable. Positive? or Negative? Why this relationship exists?
(3) Refer to some empirical studies, if any, to prove this relationship.
I will conclude as what Prof. Lim told us at the end of class:
One easy way to build theory is to take one old theory and observe the phenomenon. Do things in different situation happen as expected? If not, you find the anomaly. This is great! Next is only to uncover the Whys to build a new theory of your own.
This summary is based on,
Feldman, D. (2004). "What are we talking about when we talk about theory?" Journal of management 30(5): 565.
Sutton, R. and B. Staw (1995). "What theory is not." Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3).
Whetten, D. (1989). "What constitutes a theoretical contribution?" Academy of Management Review 14(4): 490-495.
