e Academy o/Management fleview, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 4, 490-495
What Constitutes a
Theoretical Contribution?
DAVID A. WHETTEN
University of Illinois
Since becoming editor of AMR, I have tried to
find a simple way to communicate the neces-
sary ingredients of a theoretical contribution.
There are several excellent treatises on the sub-
ject, but they typically involve terms and con-
cepts that are difficult to incorporate into every-
day communications with authors and review-
ers. My experience has been that available
frameworks are as likely to obfuscate, as they
are to clarify, meaning. Besides exposure to the
works of Kaplan, Dubin, and others varies
widely across the Academy.
This article is a rudimentary effort to fill this
gap: The intent is not to create a new conceptu-
alization of theory, but rather to propose several
simple concepts for discussing the theory-
development process. It is a personal reflection,
which has emerged out of my daily editorial ac-
tivities. My motivation is to ease the communi-
cation problems regarding expectations and
standards, which result from the absence of a
broadly accepted framework for discussing the
merits of conceptual writing in the organiza-
tional sciences.
Einally, my comments should not be inter-
preted either as official AMR dogma or ironclad
rules governing the evaluation process. Each
submitted paper is unique, and it is judged on its
own merits; however, my thinking has clearly
been influenced by the hundreds of communi-
cations I have read during the first half of my
editorship.
This article is organized around three key
questions: (a) What are the building blocks of
theory development? (b) What is a legitimate
value-added contribution to theory develop-
ment? and (c) What factors are considered in
judging conceptual papers? The first section de-
scribes the constituent elements of a theory. The
second section uses this framework to establish
standards for the theory-development process.
The third section summarizes the expectations of
reviewers regarding the substantive contribu-
tion and appropriateness of AMR papers.
What Are the Building Blocks oi
Theory Development?
According to theory-development authorities
(e.g., Dubin, 1978), a complete theory must con-
tain four essential elements, which are de-
scribed in the following paragraphs.
What. Which factors (variables, constructs,
concepts) logically should be considered as part
of the explanation of the social or individual
phenomena of interest? Two criteria exist for
judging the extent to which we have included
the "right" factors: comprehensiveness (i.e., are
all relevant factors included?) and parsimony
(i.e., should some factors be deleted because
they add little additional value to our under-
standing?).
When authors begin to map out the concep-
tual landscape of a topic they should err in favor
of including too many factors, recognizing that
over time their ideas will be refined. It is gener-
ally easier to delete unnecessary or invalid ele-
ments than it is to justify additions. However, this
should not be interpreted as license to throw in
the kitchen sink. Sensitivity to the competing vir-
tues of parsimony and comprehensiveness is the
hallmark of a good theorist.
490

How. Having identified a set of factors, the
researcher’s next question is. How are they re-
lated? Operationally this involves using
"arrows" to connect the "boxes." Such a step
adds order to the conceptualization by explicitly
delineating patterns. In addition, it typically in-
troduces causality. Although the researcher
may be unable to adequately test these links,
restrictions in methods do not invalidate the in-
herent causal nature of theory.
Together the What and How elements consti-
tute the domain or subject of the theory. The
more complex the set of relationships under con-
sideration, the more useful it is to graphically
depict them. Not all theoretical treatises must
contain figures with boxes and arrows, but a
visual representation often clarifies the author’s
thinking and increases the reader’s comprehen-
sion. In particular, formal models aid theory de-
velopers and users to assess the balance be-
tween parsimony and completeness.
Why. What are the underlying psychological,
economic, or social dynamics that justify the se-
lection of factors and the proposed causal rela-
tionships? This rationale constitutes the theory’s
assumptions the theoretical glue that welds
the model together. (Like Dubin, I do not distin-
guish between a model and a theory.)
The central question addressed here is: Why
should colleagues give credence to this particu-
lar representation of the phenomena? The an-
swer lies in the logic underlying the model. The
soundness of fundamental views of human na-
ture, organizational requisites, or societal pro-
cesses provide the basis for judging the reason-
ableness of the proposed conceptualization.
During the theory-development process, logic
replaces data as the basis for evaluation. Theo-
rists must convince others that their propositions
make sense if they hope to have an impact on
the practice of research. If the theoretical model
is a useful guide for research, by definition, all
the relationships in the model have not been
tested. If all links have been empirically verified,
the model is ready for the classroom and is of
little value in the laboratory. The mission of a
theory-development journal is to challenge and
extend existing knowledge, not simply to rewrite
it. Therefore, authors should push back the
boundaries of our knowledge by providing com-
pelling and logical justifications for altered
views. This requires explaining the Whys under-
lying the reconstituted Whats and Hows.
Why research is conducted has important im-
plications for the link between theory develop-
ment and empirical research. Combining the
Hows and the Whats produces the typical
model, from which testable propositions can be
derived. (The primary difference between prop-
ositions and hypotheses is that propositions in-
volve concepts, whereas hypotheses require
measures.) Technically, these statements (e.g.,
A is caused by B) can be tested without under-
standing the Whys underlying the model. How-
ever, this tends to lead to empirically, rather
than theoretically, dominated discussions of the
implications of a study’s results. As a field, when
we have insufficient understanding of why we
collectively started an investigative journey, or
what theoretical direction we are following,
then our discourse tends to degenerate into
heated methodological debates over how fast
we are traveling. To avoid vacuous discus-
sions, propositions should be well grounded in
the Whys, as well as the Hows and the Whats.
To summarize thus far: What and How de-
scribe; only Why explains. What and How pro-
vide a framework for interpreting patterns, or
discrepancies, in our empirical observations.
This is an important distinction because data,
whether qualitative or quantitative, character-
ize; theory supplies the explanation for the char-
acteristics. Therefore, we must make sure that
what is passing as good theory includes a plau-
sible, cogent explanation for why we should ex-
pect certain relationships in our data. Together
these three elements provide the essential ingre-
dients of a simple theory: description and expla-
nation.
An additional comment about the use of prop-
491