Bridging the Great Divide Between Theoretical and Empirical Management Research

Abstract

Management research places a great premium on theory development. Despite this emphasis, concerns have been expressed regarding the extent to which management theories are tested in empirical research. This article reviews evidence concerning the connections between theoretical and empirical management research and reports an investigation that examines the correspondence between the propositions presented in 20 highly cited theoretical articles and the hypotheses stated in 361 empirical articles that cite the theories. Results indicate that the vast majority of propositions in the cited theoretical articles are not translated into hypotheses in the citing empirical articles. This disconnect manifests a great divide between theoretical and empirical management research. Implications of these results are discussed, and potential solutions are offered.

On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications

“…Yet, ironically, 90% of theories/models published in AMR are never tested (Kacmar & Whitfield, 2000). More recent evidence, looking at the top-cited articles in AMR confirms that almost none of the theoretical propositions are directly tested in empirical research (Edwards, Berry, & Stewart, 2016). It is rather odd that we have "theory envy" when the best theories our field produces are never tested.…”

Defining and operationalizing theory

“…Over time, however, we seem to have forgotten the meaning and purpose of theory. The result is a field that can produce the findings of Edwards et al (2013); Leavitt et al (2010); Kacmar and Whitfield (2000), and O'Boyle et al (in press). None of the changes that are needed are terribly difficult to implement, but they do require the will of the small number of people who determine the editorial policies of our top journals.…”

“…As was mentioned earlier, Edwards et al () have found that AMR models are very rarely tested. This is not to say that many of the individual linkages in such models are not tested in some fashion, but it is very rare for a study to provide a comprehensive and critical test of an AMR model.…”

“…But we need not speculate about whether or not our theories are tested. Consider the work of Edwards, Berry, and Kay (). These authors compiled the most cited AMR articles and then reviewed the empirical papers that had cited them.…”

Pseudotheory proliferation is damaging the organizational sciences

“…Few of these offered theories are ever tested even once. This is evident by Edwards, Berry, and Kay's (2014) investigation showing that most theories proposed in Academy of Management Review (AMR) were never tested in subsequent publications. Similarly, Kacmar and Whitfield (2000) observed that of those articles citing a paper published in AMR, the majority did not test the hypotheses proposed in the original article.…”