What Theory is Not

謝謝聆聽敬請指教

李元德教授高等管理理論專題報告

博一 陳錦玉 2012/11/20

What Theory is Not Authors: Robert I.Sutton &Barry M.StawABSTRACT:

This essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, but there is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory.本文介紹包含一些理論的文件，而不是沒有理論之間的差異。關於什麼構成強與弱的社會科學理論有些爭議，而什麼不是理論, 例如 : 引用、數據、變量、圖表和假設, 卻有更多共識。

Despite this consensus, however, authors routinely use these five elements in lieu of theory. We explain how each of these five elements can be confused with theory and how to avoid such confusion. By making this consensus explicit, we hope to help authors avoid some of the most common and easily averted problems that lead readers to view papers as having inadequate theory.然而，儘管這樣的共識，作者經常使用這五個要素，以代替理論。我們將解釋這五個要素中的每一個和理論之間如何被混淆，以及如何避免這種混亂。通過這樣明確的共識，我們希望能幫助避免一些最常見，最容易避免的問題，引導讀者檢視理論不足的論文。

We then discuss how journals might facilitate the publication of stronger theory. We suggest that if the field is serious about producing stronger theory, journals need to reconsider their empirical requirements. We argue that journals ought to be more receptive to papers that test part rather than all of a theory and use illustrative rather than definitive data. 然後，我們討論怎樣的期刊可能促進出版更強的理論。我們認為，如果這領域是認真的產生較強的理論，該期刊需要重新考慮他們的實證的需求。我們主張，期刊應該是接受更多測驗部分的文件，而不是所有的理論，而不是確切的數據和使用說明。

Parts of an Article That are not theory 各節簡介1. References are not theory.Lots of references to existing theories does not create a new theory. Sometimes references are a smoke screen or are "throw-away" references. Authors need to explain which concepts and arguments are adopted from cited sources and how they are linked to the developed theory.許多現有的理論不創建一個新的理論。有時引用是一種煙幕，或者是“被扔掉”的引用。作者需要解釋的概念和參數採用引用來源，以及它們是如何聯繫的理論。2. Data are not theoryData describe which empirical patterns were observed and theory explains why empirical patterns were observed. Data provides support but does not constitute a theory. Those who use qualitative data must develop causal arguments to explain why findings are observed if they want to include theory.數據描述了哪些經驗模式進行了觀察和經驗模式的理論解釋了為什麼觀察。數據提供支持，但不構成理論。使用定性數據，必須發展因果關係的爭論，解釋為什麼發現，如果他們想包括理論。3. Lists of Variables or Constructs are Not TheoryTheory is not conceptual definitions. Lists of variables that cover all possible determinants help explain but is not theory by themselves. Comparative tests of variables is not a comparative test of theory. They key issue is again WHY certain variables are more important.理論是沒有概念的定義。有助於解釋的變量列表，涵蓋所有可能的決定因素，但不是理論本身。比較試驗的變量是不是理論的比較測試。他們關鍵的問題是，為什麼某些變量是更重要的。

4. Diagrams are Not Theory 圖表是不是理論Diagrams can help explain how a phenomenon is created, but they again don't explain why. Good theory is often representational and verbal. With a strong theory one can discern when a major hypothesis is most or least likely to hold. 圖表可以幫助解釋如何創建一個現象，但他們又沒有解釋為什麼。良好的理論往往是表象的和口頭的。憑藉強大的理論時，可以察覺的一個主要假設是大部分或至少可能持有。

5.Hypothesis (or predictions) are not theory假設（或預測 ) 不是理論A theoretical model is not simply a statement of hypotheses. Hypotheses are statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur. Predictions without logic are not theory. Strong theory papers have both simplicity and connectedness.理論模型不是簡單的假設陳述。假設的陳述是期望發生什麼，不是預計它會發生什麼。沒有邏輯的預測不是理論。較好的理論的論文都簡單性和連通性。

補充說明 371Authors routinely use references, data, variables,

diagrams, and hypotheses in lieu of good theory. Journals should be more receptive to papers that the part than all of a theory and use illustrative than definitive data. 作者經常使用的引文，數據，變量，圖表，假設代替良好的理論。期刊應是更容易接受的文件不是確切的數據，所有的理論和使用說明。

There is lack of agreement whether a model and a theory can be distinguished, whether a typology is a theory, and the value of “interestingness” on theory, and whether falsifiability is a pre-requisite. Scholars are forced to make tradeoffs between generality, simplicity, and accuracy.其中缺乏一致的模型和理論 , 區分理論是否是個典範 ? 或是否是有“趣味性”的價值理論，和偽證是否是一個必要條件 ( 前提 ) 。學者們被迫在一般性、簡單性和準確性之間進行權衡。

PARTS OF AN ARTICLE THAT ARE NOT THEORY1.References Are Not Theory 參考文獻不是理論 p372

References to theory developed in prior work help set the stage for new conceptual arguments. Authors need to acknowledge the stream of logic on which they are drawing and to which they are contributing.

以前理論的發展主要在幫助工作建立新的概念爭論。作者必須承認邏輯上的流派，他們正在規劃它們要貢獻什麼。

But listing references to existing theories and mentioning the names of such theories is not the same as explicating the causal logic they contain.

但文獻中已有的理論和提及的名字，這樣的理論是不同的訴說它們所包含的因果邏輯。

P373

A manuscript that Robert Sutton edited had strong data, but all three reviewers emphasized that it had “weak theory” and “ poorly motivated hypotheses”

羅伯特·薩頓編輯的稿件有強勁的數據，但全部三位審稿者強調它的“理論薄弱”而且“沒有假設的動機”

References are sometimes used like a smoke screen to hide the absence of theory. Both of us can think of instances in which we have used a string of references to hide the fact that we really didn’t understand the phenomenon in question.

引用有時使用像一個煙幕隱藏理論不在的實情。我們兩個人能想到的實例中，我們使用了一個字符串的引用隱瞞事實，我們真的不明白問題的現象。

P373

Marktwain defined a classic as “A book which people praise but don’t read” Papers for organizational research journals typically include a set of such thow-away references.

馬克吐溫把經典定義為“一本人們讚賞的書，但卻不會去讀的書”組織研究期刊的論文 , 通常包括一組這樣被棄置的引文。

2.Data Are Not Theory 數據不是理論 p373

Much of organization theory is based on data. Empirical evidence plays an important role in confirming, revising, or discrediting existing theory and in guiding the development of new theory.

許多組織理論為基礎的數據。實證證據中起著重要的作用，在確認，修改，或抹黑現有的理論和指導發展的新的理論。

But observed patterns like beta weights, factor loadings ,or consistent statements by informants rarely constitute explanations.

但如 β的權重所觀察到的模式、因子載荷，或由資料提供者的陳述 , 很少構成一致的解釋。

Although our examples focus on using past quantitative data to motivate theory and hypotheses, qualitative papers are not immune to such prolbems.

雖然我們的例子側重於用過去的定量數據來激勵理論和假說，質的論文也不能倖免這樣的問題。

Quotes from informants or detailed observation may get a bit closer to the underlying causal forces than, say, mean job satisfaction scored or convey causal arguments that are abstract and simple enough to be applied to other settings.

從資料提供者或細節的觀察，可能有點接近潛在的因果力量，也就是說，平均工作滿意度的得分或傳達因果關係，是抽象的、簡化的，可以適用於其他設定的參數。

p375

In comparing self-managing teams to traditional teams with supervisors. Barker(1993:408)quoted an informant, “Now the whole team is around me and the whole team is observing what I’m doing ..” This quote doesn’t contain causal logic and isn’t abstract enough to be generalized to other settings.

比較自我管理的團隊和管理者的傳統隊。巴克（ 1993:408 ）援引一名線人，“現在整個團隊圍繞著我，和整個團隊正在觀察我在做什麼。”此引述不包含因果邏輯，而且不是抽象得足以被推廣到其他設定。

But these data helped guide and support Barker’s inference that because every team member has legitimate authority over every other, and because the surveillance of multiple coworkers is harder to avoid than that of a single boss, self-managing teams constrain members quite powerfully.

但是，這些數據有助於引導和支持巴克的推論，因為每一個團隊成員都擁有超過其他任何合法的權威，且 , 因為監視多個同事比監視一個老闆更困難，自我管理的團隊相當有力的約束成員。

P375

Listing the demographic characteristics of people associated with a given behavior is not theory.

對人類的特徵做人口統計列表 , 與給一個關連的行為，並不是理論

Diving the world into personality versus situational determinants does not ,by itself ,constitute a theory of behavior.

潛入世界進入個性與情境的決定因素，本身並不構成一個行為理論。

3.Lists of Variables or Constructs Are Not Theory 變量表或結構表不是理論 P375(1)Organizations present a “numerical index “to 206 variables discussed in the classic book. This list of variables and the definitions that March and Simon present of these variables are important parts of their theory but do not alone constitute theory .A theory must also explain why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected.組織對於 206種討論變量的經典書中提出了“數字索引”。 March和Simon提出這些變量表和定義的變異 , 是他們的理論中重要的部分 . 但是卻無法單獨構成理論 . 理論還必須解釋為什麼變量或結構如何形成 ? 或是他們為什麼相關連 ?(2) Much official sociological theory consists in fact of concepts and their definitions; it provides a dictionary of a language that possesses no sentences.許多官方社會學理論 , 是由概念和其定義的事實組成，它提供了一種語言的字典，而它不具備句子的。

4.Diagrams Are Not Theory 圖表 ( 圖解 ) 不是理論 P376

Diagrams or figures can be a valuable part of a research paper but also, by themselves ,rarely constitute theory.

圖表或數字可以是一個有價值的研究論文的一部分，而且也是他自己的，卻很少構成理論。

More helpful are figures that show causal relationships in a logical ordering ,so that readers can see a chain of causation or how a third variable intervenes in or moderates a relationship.

更多有用的是那些數字在邏輯順序上所顯示的因果關係，使讀者可以看到一個因果鏈或第三個變量如何干預或適度溫和的關係。

5.Hypotheses(or Predictions)Are Not Theory 假設或預測不是理論 p376Hypotheses can be an important part of a well-crafted

conceptual argument. They serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized.

假設是一個精心設計的概念參數的重要組成部分。他們作為理論和數據之間的重要橋樑，明確如何從邏輯參數的變量和關係，遵循可操作性。

But,as Dubin(1976:26)noted “A theoretical model is not simply a statement of hypothesis” Hypotheses do not contain logical arguments about why empirical relationships are expected to occur . Hypotheses are concise statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur.

但是，誠如杜賓（ 1976:26 ）指出的“理論模型，不是假設的簡單地聲明”假設不包含邏輯參數對於為何經驗關係預計將發生的事。假設扼要說明什麼將會發生，不是預計它將會發生什麼。

P377 最後一段Strong theory usually stems from s single or small

set of research ideas. Some famous examples have been statements that people are motivated to resolve inconsistencies(Festinger,1957)

強大的理論通常來自對單一或小的研究思路。有些著名的例子已經聲明那些人的動機是為了解決不一致（費斯廷格， 1957 年）

Papers with strong theory thus often start with one or two conceptual statements and build a logically detailed case ; they have both simplicity and interconnectedness.

因此 , 具有很強理論的論文往往開始於和一個或兩個概念的陳述，並建立一個邏輯的詳細情況 ;他們都具有簡單性和相互關聯性。

Identifying Strong Theory識別強大的理論 P378

Though we have noted that it is easier to identify features of manuscripts that are not theory than it is to specify exactly what good theory is , our own prejudices about the matter are already evident.

雖然我們已經指出，識別原稿是不是理論的特徵，比精確地指出什麼是良好的理論更容易，我們自己對這議題的偏見已經顯現出來。

We agree with scholars like Kaplan(1964) and Merton(1967) who assert that theory is the answer to queries of why. Theory is about the connections among phenomena ,a story about why acts ,events,structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events.

我們同意學者卡普蘭（ 1964 ）和 Merton（ 1967 ）主張，理論是質問為什麼的答案。理論是現象之間的聯繫、關於一個故事為何行為、事件、 結構和思想發生的原因。理論強調因果關係的本質，確定當這些事件的時機，什麼是首先到來 ?

Theory answers why. It‘s about connections among phenomenon. It delves into underlying processes. It is laced with t set of convincing and logically interconnected arguments. Weick says a good theory explains, predicts, and delights. 理論答案的原因。之間的連接現象。它深入探討了潛在的過程。它是股價的說服力和邏輯上相互關聯的參數設置。韋克說，一個好的理論解釋，預測，和使人歡喜。

承上 P378 Strong theory ,in our view ,delves into underlying processes

so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence. It often burrows deeply into microprocesses,laterally into neighboring concepts, or in an upward direction, tying itself to broader social phenomena. It usually is laced with a set of convincing and logically interconnected arguments. It can have implications that we have not seen with our naked(or theoretically unassisted )eye . It may have implications that run counter to our common sense. As Weick(1995) put it succinctly ,a good theory explains,predicts ,delights.

我們認為，強大的理論是深入研究基本流程，以便了解系統的一個特定的發生或不發生的原因。它通常深入探討細微的過程，且橫向到鄰近的概念，或向上的趨勢，聯繫到更廣泛的社會現象。它通常是鑲有一組有說服力和邏輯上相互關聯的參數。它可能會暗示我們還沒有看到的本質（或獨立的理論）觀點。它可能暗示與我們背道而馳的常識。韋克（ 1995 ）把它簡潔地表示:一個良好的理論能解釋、預測、令人愉悅的。

The Case Against Theory針對理論的案例 P378

Some prominent researchers have argued the case against theory. John Van Maanen(1989),for example,has stressed that the field first needs more descriptive narratives about organizational life, presumably based on intensive ethnographic work.

一些著名的研究人員都針對理論的實例有爭議。例如 : 約翰·範·Maanen（ 1989 ）強調這領域首先需要更具描述性的敘述對於組織生活，大概基於密集的人種學工作上。

承上頁 p378-379

He called for a ten-year moratorium on theoretical(and methodological) papers.The happy result of such a moratorium, Van Maanen suggested, would be a temporary halt to the proliferation of mediocre writing and theory ,a broader audience(attracted by better writing),and better theory—after the moratorium had passed, both old and new models would be grounded in a well-crafted set of organizational narratives.

他呼籲理論和方法的論文暫停 10年。這暫停是快樂的結果，凡 Maanen建議，將暫時停止二流的創作與理論的擴散，更廣泛的讀者群 ( 被更好的寫作所吸引 ) ，以及更好的理論—在暫停過後，舊和新的典範將被紮根於一個精心設計的一套組織的敘事模式。

If we avoid aiming at the target for a long while and first develop more fundamental knowledge,we will do a better job of hitting the bull’s-eye when we finally do take aim.

如果我們避免長時間瞄準目標，而首先開發出更多的基本知識 . 當我們最後才瞄準目標，我們會做的更好的工作來擊中靶心。

P380Northcraft and Neale(1993)have noted that such

shortcomings can sometimes be resolved by building research teams with complementary skills.

諾斯克拉夫特和尼爾（ 1993 ）曾指出，這樣的缺點，有時可以藉由建立研究團隊互補的技能獲得解決。

But we suspect that there may not be enough strong theorists to go around Organizational researchers are primarily trained in data collection techniques and the latest analytical tools,not the nuances of theory building. Our doctoral programs tend to skip over theory building, perhaps because it is not a step-by-step process that can be taught like LISREL or event-history analysis. 但我們認為未必有足夠強大的理論家們圍繞在組織研究主要的數據收集技術的培訓和最新的分析工具上，而不是在理論建設的細微差別。我們的博士課程往往跳過理論建設，也許是因為它不是一步一步的過程，可以像教 LISREL或事件的歷史分析等 ( 那樣單純 ) 。

The Case Against Theory針對理論的案例 補充說明

Van Maanen believes there is too much mediocre theory and there should be a 10 year moratorium while we understand organizations better through observation. Others think we should focus more on accumulating empirical findings for meta-analysis. Maanen

認為有太多平庸的理論，應該有 10 年的暫停，同時我們更好地理解組織通過觀察。其他人則認為，我們應更注重積累的經驗進行薈萃分析結果。

Most researchers are trained in experimentation, not in theory building. It's difficult to successfully do both and still get published. Often theory is crafted around the data. Thus the craft of manuscript writing becomes an art of fitting concepts and arguments around what has been measured and discovered.大多數研究人員都是訓練有素的實驗，而不是在理論建設。這是難以成功的同時，仍然可以出版。很多時候，理論是圍繞數據製作。因此，稿件撰寫的工藝成為一門藝術進行了測量，發現周圍裝修的概念和參數。

Are We Expecting Too Much?我們期望過高了嗎 ? P380 At this point in the essay we are forced to ask whether

we have been naive. 本文在這一點上，我們被迫自問是否也曾有過這樣的幼稚 ?

Perhaps there are enduring individual differences and preferences that explain why good theory is so hard to find in organizational research papers.也許有持久的個體差異和喜好，解釋了為什麼這麼難找到組織研究論文中好的理論。

Perhaps people who are driven more by data than ideas are enticed to join an empirically based field such as organizational behavior.也許是帶動更多的數據的人比想法更吸引人加入一個以經驗為基礎的領域，例如組織行為學 .

Perhaps the applied nature of the field attracts practical, no-nonsense types rather than the more dreamy misfits who might naturally be good at theoretical pursuits .也許是應用性的領域，吸引務實、不尚空談的類型，而不是更多夢幻般格格不入的人，他們可能自然地成為很好的理論追求者。

Some Recommendations一些建議 P381

Our recommendation is to rebalance the selection process between theory and method. 我們的建議是在理論和方法之間的平衡選擇過程。

People’s natural inclination is to require greater proof of a new or provocative idea than one they already believe to be true(Nisbett and Ross,1980)

人的自然傾向是 , 對一個新的或挑釁的想法比他們已經相信是真實的 , 需要更多的證明。 （ Nisbett和羅斯， 1980 年）

Therefore, if a theory is particularly interesting, the standards used to evaluate how well it is tested or grounded need to be relaxed,not strengthened. We need to recognize that major contributions can be made when data are more illustrative than definitive.

因此，如果一個理論特別有趣，該標準用於評估它多好測試 ,或可以輕鬆地學會基礎需要，而不加強。我們需要認識到，當數據 ( 資料 ) 更多明確的說明 , 可以作出重大貢獻 .

承上 P382

We also think journals like ASQ need to revise their norms about the linkage between theory and data. Not everything discussed in the introduction of a manuscript need be operationalized in the method section nor show up in a set of regression equations.

我們也認為像 ASQ期刊需要修正他們的規範關於理論和數據之間的聯繫。並非一切被採用的原稿的討論都需要具有可操作性的方法 ,有些部分也顯示在一組回歸方程式。

If theory building is a valid goal, then journals should be willing to publish paper that really are stronger in theory than method. 如果理論建設是一個有效的目標，那麼刊物應該願意刊登此論文，它真的有很強的理論而不是方法。

Authors should be rewarded rather than punished for developing strong conceptual arguments that dig deeper and extend more broadly than the data will justify.

作者應該得到回報，而不是懲罰 , 在發展強大的概念爭論的深入 ,和擴展更廣泛的將證明的數據。

Some Recommendations 補充說明Right now it's easier to agree around a strong empirical

paper with no theory than one with a weak test of a new theoretical idea. Unfortunately, papers chosen for revision seem to be those with acceptable methods and undeveloped theory. 現在它更容易同意圍繞一個強有力的經驗性紙比沒有理論的一個新的理論概念是一個弱小的測試之一。不幸的是，論文選擇了修訂，似乎是可以接受的方法和未開發的理論。

The author's recommendation is to rebalance the selection process between theory and method. Journals should publish papers that are stronger in theory than method. It's sort of been happening for qualitative research but not quantitative research. Seldom are ethnographic descriptions published when they are not also a source of new concepts or ideas. In qualitative studies often theory is emphasized too much. 筆者的建議是平衡的理論和方法之間的選擇過程。期刊發表論文強的理論而不是方法。它的排序已經發生的事情進行定性研究，但沒有定量的研究。很少公佈的民族志描述時，他們不也是一個新概念或新的想法來源。在定性研究往往過多強調理論。

Conclusion 結論 P383

We began this essay with the general complaint that many manuscripts we see as reviewers and editors are devoid of theory.我們開始這篇文章中，我們所看到的評論家和編輯的許多手稿是缺乏理論與一般的投訴。

In our experience, authors seem to fool themselves into thinking that at least five otherwise worthy features of a research paper can be theory when they are not.

根據我們的經驗，作者似乎是在愚弄自己，以為至少 5個其他有價值的功能的研究論文可以是理論的時候都沒有。

So we put up and explained five “Wrong Way” signs for authors. We hope these guidelines will help authors avoid writing manuscripts that contain little or no theory.

因此，我們提出並解釋五“錯誤的道路”標誌為作者。我們希望這些指導方針將幫助作者避免編寫包含很少或根本沒有理論的手稿。

But we are not so naive as to that these few signposts will create a rush of new theory in organizational research.

但是，我們並不天真地以為這幾個指標，將創建一個草率的組織研究的新理論。

承上段 The problem is more complex and the solutions more

complicated. 這問題有很多複雜層面 , 而解決方式更是複雜。 We explored several structural reasons for the current

imbalance between theory and method in organizational research, nothing how the problem may stem from both the way we run journals as well as the nature and training of researchers who make up our field.

我們探討組織研究的理論和方法，沒有什麼問題的方式以及我們辦刊的性質和研究人員的培訓，使我們的領域可能源於目前的不平衡之間的結構性原因。

Our conclusions, though sometimes oblique and contradictory, can be read as pleas for more balance in weighing the theoretical versus empirical sides of research.

我們的結論儘管有時拐彎抺角和矛盾，可以理解為尋求平衡重量的理論與實證研究雙方的。

We argue for greater theoretical emphasis in quantitative research, along with more appreciation of the empiricism of qualitative endeavors.

我們認為在定量研究的理論強調，隨著更多的經驗主義的定性努力的升值。

由於個人大學之後就沒機會運用英文 , 一般生活用語還聽得懂 , 學術英文正積極加強中 .

這篇論文探討另外補充的兩篇 (The Case for Qualitative Research ,Comments on“What Theory is Not” ),由於時間有限 , 在此先不討論 , 待期末書面報告時 , 再一併報告閱讀心得 .

針對本文 , 個人有以下提問 : 1.P380 Are We Expecting Too Much? 第一段就有三個Perhaps,一個 If, 似與本論文自相矛盾 , 因為本文建立的五個非理論的要素 , 其中不是說 : 假設不是理論 ?Perhaps ,If 不是Hypotheses嗎 ?

2. 同樣在這段論述中看來 , 作者所謂建立理論的人 , 難道是 :dreamy misfits(愛作夢與現實格格不入 ) 、 nonsense(胡說 , 廢話 , 空談的 ) 的人

3.瞭解 <What Theory Is Not>和高階管理理論有何關連 ? 4. 理論的建立 , 並非是每一篇論文的主軸 , 有些論文的性質在於歸納整

理 ( 即 references,data 的整理 );有些論文屬於現象分析 , 必需佐以 variables,diagrams 的輔助 , 使讀者更易於理解 , 並立即掌握清楚的脈絡 . 更有些論文需要作者大膽假設 ( 所以 Hypotheses也能建立理論 ),以便於將主題的未來前瞻性 , 提出合乎邏輯推理的推測 . 所以 ,這篇論文看似各段論述言之成理 , 但是 , 若立足不同角度 , 就會有不同觀點 , 而可從相反面予以批判 , 我想 , 這便是另外兩篇補充論文寫成的原因。

最後 , 我想 , 典範的轉移有必要靠一群不是在建立理論的研究者追隨 !