Discussion: View Thread

A scholarly discipline is defined by its theory. In fact, one might argue that the theoretical explanations that are accumulated over time comprise the totality of our understanding for a certain subject matter or its phenomena. It is for this reason that scholarly contributions, notably the journal articles that have become the currency of our profession, are fundamentally theoretical. Without a contribution to theory, there is no contribution.

There are different ways of creating theory, of course. In the numerous editorials in our most highly regarded journals, senior scholars and editors share their view of what makes a theory and, importantly, a contribution to theory. Typically, this is done through applying "the scientific method" to formulate hypotheses that are then tested empirically on specifically collected data suitable for the task. But this is a practice that we borrowed from the natural sciences, arguably following economists' "physics envy," to make our discipline appear more "scientific."

But the social sciences have always relied on a very different method for uncovering truths about the social world, which is arguably better suited for its dynamic, value-oriented, and behavioral, if not interpretive, subject matters: rationalism. We need theory to demarcate concepts and phenomena, untangle them, and produce explanations.

I mention this difference not as an argument for one or the other, only to illustrate that our theories differ not only in what they study and how they deal with observations. There are more fundamental (and potentially incompatible) differences too.

Add to this that the publishing requirement in our profession (read: "publish or perish") pushes every one of us to produce numerous "contributions to theory" and to do so regularly. There is nothing wrong with the requirement, considering what theory is and does, but its institutionalization as a prerequisite for a position and currency in the career has made publishing - and thereby theory contributions - subject to Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."