研究方法|建立假设：如何在顶级管理学期刊发表论文（四）
如何在顶级管理学期刊发表论文（四）：建立假设
理论部分是任何论文的关键部分，但对于AMJ的投稿尤其重要。理论部分的主要目的是为假设打下基础；这包括
① 将这些假设与相关研究相关联，
② 形成一个清晰、符合逻辑的理由，解释为什么核心变量或过程与提议的方式相关，
③ 在提出的模型的变量和过程之间建立一种连贯感。
所有这些都是假设的理论建设的重要元素。我们分别讨论每一个，然后处理解释逻辑中的几个潜在陷阱。
融合先前研究
创建一个强大的理论章节的一个关键因素是与其他研究人员进行建设性的对话，这些研究人员检视过指导某一主题研究的一个或多个理论。AMJ审稿人在理论部分寻找的是一个清晰的、理论驱动的叙述，而不是文献综述。有效地创造这样一个叙事，需要在融合先前的研究和仔细发展自己的新鲜见解之间保持微妙的平衡。
一方面，引用任何相关性较弱的论文都会带来有时被称为“通过引用来论证”的风险。当理论章节的许多句子以引文开头时（例如，“Smith（2002）发现…”），重要的是要后退一步，并证实自己是在建立一个基于解释逻辑的有说服力的论证。在建立论据时，引用以前的相关著作是很重要的，但是理论部分不应该围绕这些先前著作来构建，这样容易导致逻辑推理被推成理论背景。事实上，审稿人肯定会对那些有几页文献回顾/讨论的论文提出担忧，因为这些论文的前提假设与前面的文本并不符合逻辑。在这种情况下，通常的问题是作者过于专注于告诉读者其他人都做了些什么，以致于论文没有为当前的假设提供有力的理由。仅仅引用先前的研究并不构成逻辑论证；相反，引文应该用来说明自己论证逻辑的各种要素（Sutton & Staw，1995）。
另一方面，重要的是要避免另一个极端，只关注争论而忽略先前的相关对话。如果不引用几篇高度相关的论文，读者会对文章的价值产生疑问，尤其是当他们认为一篇或多篇被忽视的文章与当前的论文内容密切相关时。解释你的工作如何与某一主题相关的文献相匹配，部分是要清楚地阐明论文是如何建立在文献基础上的，这就需要解释已经做了什么，以及为什么论文提出的观点是超出先前著作的、符合逻辑的、重要的贡献。
有效地涵盖先前工作的关键是，不要仅仅引用具体的实证结果，更要关注正在解决的潜在理论问题。进入先前的研究对话，意味着融入潜在理论叙事——这才是过去实证研究的基础，而不是实证结果本身。同样，贡献不仅取决于结果，还取决于它们如何导致对组织现象的新见解。这些见解将是有意义的，因为用来激励他们的思想与潜在理论叙事的发展明确地联系在一起，为假设提供信息。
达到连接先前研究和发展清晰推理之间必要的平衡的一种方法，是从论点本身开始，因为它们是思想的组织结构。一个可能有帮助的练习是先写一篇草稿中的“理论和假设”部分，而不引用以前的研究。当然，其他人的想法是这个练习的基础。但是，以这种纯粹的形式构建解释逻辑，可以让人看到它本身是否清晰、一致和有说服力。此外，这项练习将需要将正在进行的理论叙述纳入自己的解释逻辑，这样做将使提议的想法与更大的对话之间的关系变得明显。当这一点可以令人满意地完成，就可以返回并纳入先前的研究，致敬那些值得肯定的学者，并解释新的工作如何补充或挑战他们的研究。
通过将自己的观点与他人的观点相比较来开始一个理论环节的挑战之一，就是可能失去对清晰论点的聚焦——这是有效的理论部分中最关键的要素。当读者得出一个有效的、有根据的假设时，理论部分的工作应该已经引导他们到达这样一个点：（1）假设并不令人惊讶（即论文清楚地导出了这个具体的预测）和（2）读者清楚地理解为什么这些构念是相关联的。读者们可能不完全同意，但他们清楚地理解了潜在的关系，这是假设的焦点。
建立论点或解释逻辑的逻辑
初稿中引出每一个假设的那部分文字都是比较难写的，这是有充分理由的。这些章节的目的是让读者相信这些假设中的说法是可信的。选择这些读者（审稿人）是因为他们的专业知识，作为审稿人，他们的角色是对论文中提出的主张（假设）和支持它们的逻辑保持一种健康的怀疑态度。
证实假设。简单地说，假设是一种声明（主张），即Y（一个因变量）与X（一个自变量）系统地相关。逻辑在这两者之间建立了联系，可以用几种方式来构建。第一种是将一个假设与一个类似的逻辑关系联系起来，这是一个既定理论或概念框架的中心原则。例如，一个假设可能出自于团队成员参与合作行为以提高他们的地位的想法。为了证实这一说法，作者可以求助于Tyler和Blader（2000）的群体参与模型。正如Sutton和Staw（1995）所指出的，仅仅参考群体参与模型是不够的。作者必须给读者提供足够的文字解释，让他们明白为什么X应该预测Y而不必阅读Tyler和Blader（2000）。这种方法的成功主要取决于论文中提出的主张与既定理论之间的一致性；如果逻辑中的其他要素与群体参与模型不一致，则前提将失败。
一种相关的逻辑技术是提供经验证据来支持相似假设所陈述的主张。这里，隐含的论点是，如果它已经被证明发生在相似的情况下，那么它也应该适用于目前的情况。然而，经验证据只有在有逻辑依据的情况下才有说服力。
第三种方法是通过精心制作一个描述中间状态和/或过程的叙述，来关注假设关系是如何发生的。例如，Seibert、Kraimer和Liden（2001）开发了一个模型，该模型综合了社会资本对职业利益的两种观点。相关理论上的相关中介变量（获得信息、获得资源和职业赞助）的作用得到了仔细的解释，为社会资本如何带来职业利益创造了令人信服的叙述。当解释一个假设的关系是如何“运作”时，请注意操作主要中间状态和过程的重要性；如果没有实证检验，中介变量的作用就无法得到证实，审稿人可能会认为这是推测性的。
在构建假设时，一个相关的考虑因素是情境。假设可能旨在普遍适用，也可能局限于特定的背景，如行业或民族文化。边界条件需要被识别，以便所提出关系的相关性是明确的。
运用多种理论。当使用多种理论时，解释这些假设背后机制的挑战尤其重要。不同的理论可能是对各种问题的新颖见解的来源，可能来自同一领域（例如，基于资源的企业观和交易成本经济学），也可能来自不同的基础学科（如社会心理学和经济学）。在任何一种情况下，结合多个理论的见解的挑战在于清楚地解释为什么解决这个研究问题需要使用这些理论，以及这些理论如何以一种对研究主题做出独特贡献的方式结合起来。每一个附加理论的必要性都应该被清楚地解释，以避免给人这样的印象，即理论被临时胡乱地拼凑起来，以证明不同的假设是正确的。
将理论结合起来有几种可能的方法，每种方法都有潜在的优点和缺点。通过相互竞争的假设将一种理论与另一种理论进行比较，并让数据决定赢家，这是一种广泛使用的方法；但必须谨慎使用，因为这会让读者感到困惑，为什么一个看似合理的理论应该胜过另一个同样合理的理论，尤其是考虑到这两个理论在文献中都得到了大量的经验支持（Cooper & Richardson，1986；Platt，1964）。一种可供替代的方法是，解释何时及为什么一种理论比另一种更优先，做到这一点的一个特别有效的方法是解释每个理论预测可能最具应用性的情境条件，并对这些预测进行经验检测。Vanneste和Puranam（2010）研究了学习效应何时会对合同设计产生更大的影响，并将学习效应与信任效应区分开来就是这种方法的一个例子。
在许多其他案例中，作者们对结合理论来更完整地描述组织现象很感兴趣。组合意味着这种关系是叠加性的，并导致将不同的自变量与因变量联系起来的假设。这种方法的风险在于，仅仅因为在过去的研究中，每一个模型都会影响因变量而被指定为组合自变量。一个将两种理论观点结合在一起并阐明其相关差异的概念框架是至关重要的。Agarwal、Echambadi、Franco和Sarkar（2004）在分析磁盘驱动器行业中分立公司的创建和绩效时，有效地进行了这种理论组合。与此相关，一篇论文可以解释不同的理论如何最适用于相关的研究问题，这些问题结合起来解决一个特定的现象；例如，一个理论可以解释一个实践何时会获得吸引力，而另一个理论可以解释哪些公司最有可能采用这种做法（例如，Sherer & Lee，2002）。
第三种方法是在两种理论之间寻求更多的整合。这包括阐明这两种观点是如何互补的，即一种理论的假设如何隐含地要求另一种理论的假设完全实现，反之亦然。这种整合需要对每一种理论的逻辑基础有一个透彻的理解，而且在构建假设之前，必须先阐明这两个理论之间的联系。做出重大贡献的潜力取决于整合是否为每种理论及其各自的文献提供了新的问题和新的见解。例如，Silverman（1999）在企业多元化研究中整合了交易成本经济学的要素和企业的资源基础观点。
我们想强调的是，运用多种理论是创造强有力理论的一种非常有效的方法。然而，当所使用的理论来自不同的基础学科时，解释连贯性的挑战就更大了。尽管AMJ鼓励多学科研究，但大多数已发表的管理论文都集中在一个核心学科上（Agarwal & Hoetker，2007）。不同领域的思想整合工作有很大的理论贡献潜力，但实际的思想整合工作必须认真做好。
一致性。在有效理论的发展过程中，最大的问题之一是解释为什么一个人选择了一组特定的解释变量而不是其他变量。如果没有对连贯性的有力讨论，读者和审稿人会想知道是什么将理论叙事结合在一起（Dubin，1976；Whetten，1989）。关键是要解决为什么选择这些变量（而且只选择那些变量）的问题。一个有效的理论部分必须解释这些变量是如何组合在一起的，以创造一个强有力和连贯的理论贡献，而不让读者疑惑为什么其他变量没有被包括在内。所提出的假设应该以一种方式联系起来，从而对主题产生整体贡献。Graebner（2009）在对创业公司收购的定性研究中，很好地将信托和代理理论的文献编织在一起。
一个强大的概念框架不需要一个带有方框和箭头的图形来解释假设是如何组合在一起的，尽管图形可以帮助读者形象地看到框架。重要的是，一个清晰的、总体性的研究问题推动了假设，并且通过借鉴研究主题的基础理论和实证工作，清楚地解释了这些解释变量是如何组合在一起的。
我们在前面所说的与先前研究的对话中得出的结论是，说服逻辑最好是由三种方法组合而成：建立在既定理论的基础上，提供相关的经验证据，解释X的变化如何导致Y的变化。但是解释逻辑是基础；没有它，对现有理论的引用就不成立了；而且只提供经验证据并不能消除读者的疑惑。此外，建立在既定理论的基础上的假设，可能会导致对“如何”的阐释，因为中介变量往往会在构建理论时流出。
陷阱
在描述了建立假设的核心要素之后，我们认为回顾审稿人在评估投稿文章中的假设发展时发现的一些反复出现的陷阱是有用的。在基础假设中常见的缺陷包括缺乏具体性、理论支离破碎以及陈述显而易见的事实。
缺乏具体性。当一个人的解释逻辑来自于一个涉及更广或更一般的领域的理论时，就会出现缺乏具体性的情况。例如，特质激活理论（Tett & Guterman，2000）解释了在个体的社会环境中，与人格特质相关的态度和行为是如何被“激活”的。因此，它为寻求通过人格特征来解释组织中的态度和行为的研究者提供了一个重要的桥梁。然而，它的应用是一般性的，尽管也许有必要解释为什么一个特定的环境因素组合会激活一个特定特质的态度和行为表现，但它并不是一个充分的解释。社会交换理论（Blau，1964）提供了另一个例子；它可以将一个人的逻辑建立在一个普遍的层次上（例如，偏好导致回报），但并没有明确地为这种关系的具体操作奠定基础（例如，礼貌能预测工作绩效）。特殊和具体需要解释——这个指南适用于所有的例子，在这种情况下，人们用来支持主张的理论领域比假设本身更广泛或更普遍。
理论支离破碎。当作者有一个具有多个假设关系的模型，其中每个环节都由来自不同理论的逻辑支持时，就意味着支离破碎的理论化。这种方法的动机可能是错误地认为理论越多越好。不幸的是，这可能在审稿人的头脑中造成这样的印象：作者正在进行事后理论化，在文献中寻找一种似乎符合给定假设的理论，或者更糟的是，与他们已经收集数据的变量相匹配的理论。我们的观察并不意味着作者不应该使用多种理论来支持他们的假设。相反，他建议从多种理论中获得的支持需要整合到一个连贯和一致的解释性叙述中。（见上文关于连贯性的章节）
陈述事实。虽然这似乎是违反直觉的，但支持一个人的假设是如此彻底，以至于它们看起来很明显，因此无趣，但并不少见。如果一个假设陈述了显而易见的事实或提出了一个常识性的主张，那么，尽管是真的，它也很可能是微不足道的（Davis，1971）。当一个审稿人说，“我无法想象无效假设如何或何时会出现”，她或他正是在说这一点。解决这个问题的一个方法是“挑逗”无效假设，也就是说，反思相反论点的合理性或关系的缺失。然后，将替代假设框架化，作为可以被视为合理的，甚至是公认的智慧的替代方案。这就需要深思熟虑地考虑理论观点，从而为无效假设提供信度。如果事实证明很难将无效假设框定为可信的，那么你的替代方案实际上可能是显而易见的和微不足道的。
结论
假设是一篇论文的核心，而建立假设是构建有效理论的重要任务之一。一个强有力的理论部分必须有效地吸收以前的文献，包括理论和经验，但必须超越它来建立强有力的逻辑论证。每篇论文都会有大量的思考，而理论部分对全文的关键作用在于，它解释该研究如何为研究主题增加价值，以及为什么这些特定的假设具有独立意义，并能结合在一起可以形成一个连贯的概念框架。
作者：
Raymond T. Sparrowe
Washington University
Kyle J. Mayer
University of Southern California
校译：
《南开管理评论》编辑部
>> 原文出处：
Academy of Management Journal 2011, Vol. 54, No. 6, 1098-1102.
>> 英文原文：
FROM THE EDITORS
PUBLISHING IN AMJ—PART 4: GROUNDING HYPOTHESES
A theory section is a critical part of any paper but is particularly important for an AMJ submission. The primary purpose of a theory section is to ground hypotheses; this involves (1) positioning those hypotheses in relation to related research (2), developing a clear, logical argument explaining why the core variables or processes are related in the proposed fashion, and (3) creating a sense of coherence in the relationships among the variables and processes in the proposed model. All are important elements of the theoretical foundation for one’s hypotheses. We discuss each separately and then address several potential pitfalls in explanatory logic.
Engaging Prior Research
A key element of creating a strong theory section involves entering into a constructive dialogue with other researchers who have examined the theory or theories that have guided research on a topic. AMJ reviewers look to the theory section to find a clear, theoretically driven narrative—not a literature review. Producing such a narrative effectively involves maintaining a delicate balance between engaging previous research and carefully developing one’s own novel insights.
On the one hand, citing any remotely relevant paper runs a very real risk of what is sometimes called “argument by citation.” When many of the sentences of a theory section start with citations (e.g., “Smith (2002) found . . .”), it is important to take a step back and verify that one is building a compelling argument based on explanatory logic. It is important to cite relevant prior works in building an argument, but the theory section should not be built around these prior works in such a way that the logical reasoning is pushed to the background. Reviewers are virtually certain to raise concerns about papers that have a couple of pages of literature review/discussion followed by a hypothesis that doesn’t flow logically from the text immediately preceding it. Often the issue in this case is that the author became so engaged in telling the reader what others have done that the paper does not contain a strong case for the current hypothesis. Merely citing prior studies does not constitute a logical argument; instead, citations should be used to illustrate various elements of the logic of one’s own argument (Sutton & Staw, 1995).
Alternatively, it is important to avoid the other extreme, focusing exclusively on the argument and ignoring prior related conversation. Failing to cite several highly relevant papers will lead readers to question the value of the contribution, especially when they believe one or more of the neglected articles is closely related to what the current work addresses. Part of explaining how your work fits into the literature on a topic is to clearly articulate how the paper builds upon that literature, which requires explaining what has already been done and why what the paper proposes is a logical and important contribution that goes beyond prior work.
The key to covering prior work effectively is to look beyond just citing specific empirical results and focus instead on the underlying theoretical issues that are being addressed. Entering the conversation in previous research means engaging the underlying theoretical narrative that is the foundation for past empirical research—but not the empirical results themselves. Similarly, the contribution rests not solely on the results, but also on how they lead to new insights about organizational phenomena. Those insights will be meaningful to the extent that the ideas used to motivate them are clearly linked to the development of the underlying theoretical narrative informing the hypotheses.
One way to achieve the required balance between linking to prior work and developing clear reasoning is to start with the arguments themselves, as they serve as the organizing structure for ideas. An exercise likely to help is first writing the “Theory and Hypotheses” section of a manuscript without a single citation to previous research. To be sure, the ideas of others are the foundation of this exercise. But crafting the explanatory logic in this pure form enables one to see whether it is clear, consistent, and persuasive on its own. Further, this exercise will require incorporating the ongoing theoretical narrative into one’s own explanatory logic, and doing so will make the relationship of the proposed ideas to the larger conversation become evident. When this point is satisfactorily reached, one can go back and incorporate prior work, giving credit to those to whom it is due and explaining how the new work complements or challenges their work.
Among the challenges of starting a theory section by framing one’s ideas relative to others’ is losing the focus on making a clear argument—the most critical element in an effective theory section. By the time readers arrive at an effectively grounded hypothesis, the theory section should have led them to the point that (1) the hypothesis is not a surprise (i.e., the paper clearly led up to this specific prediction) and (2) the readers understand clearly why the constructs are associated. They might not completely agree, but they clearly understand the underlying relationship that is the focus of the hypothesis.
Building the Argument, or the Logic of Explanatory Logic
The sections of a manuscript that lead up to each hypothesis are among the more challenging to write, for good reasons. The objective in these sections is to persuade readers that the claims made in the hypotheses are plausible. Those readers (reviewers) were selected because of their subject matter expertise and, as reviewers, their role is to maintain an attitude of healthy skepticism regarding the claims (hypotheses) made in a paper and the logic that supports them.
Substantiating hypotheses. In simple form, a hypothesis is a claim that Y, a dependent variable, is systematically related to X, an independent variable. Logic forges the connection between the two and can be framed in several ways. The first is to link a hypothesis to a similar logical relationship that is a central tenet of an established theory or conceptual framework. For example, a hypothesis might depend on the idea that team members engage in cooperative behavior to enhance their standing. To substantiate this claim, an author might appeal to the group engagement model of Tyler and Blader (2000). As Sutton and Staw (1995) pointed out, merely referencing the group engagement model is not sufficient. The author must offer enough verbal explication for the reader that he/she understands why Y should be predicted by X without having to read Tyler and Blader (2000). The success of this approach depends primarily upon the correspondence between the claim(s) made in the paper and the established theory; if other elements in the logic are inconsistent with the group engagement model, then the premise will fail.
A related logical technique is to offer empirical evidence supporting claims similar to what the hypothesis states. Here, the implicit argument is that if it has been shown to occur in similar circumstances, then it should also apply in the present circumstances. Empirical evidence is persuasive, however, only when accompanied by a logical rationale.
A third approach is to focus on how the hypothesized relationship occurs by crafting a narrative that describes the role of intervening states and/or processes. For example, Seibert, Kraimer, and Liden (2001) developed a model integrating two perspectives on the career benefits of social capital. The roles of relevant theoretically relevant mediators (access to information, access to resources, and career sponsorship) were carefully explained, creating a compelling narrative of how social capital brings career benefits. When giving an account of how a hypothesized relationship “works,” note the importance of operationalizing the primary intervening states and processes; without empirical tests, the role of mediators cannot be substantiated, and reviewers may see it as speculative.
A related consideration in framing hypotheses is context. Hypotheses may be intended to apply generally, or they may be limited to specific contexts, such as industries or national cultures. The boundary conditions need to be identified so that the relevance of the proposed relationships is explicit.
Utilizing multiple theories. The challenge of explaining the mechanisms underlying the hypotheses is particularly important when multiple theories are used. Different theories can be a source of novel insights into a variety of issues and may be from the same area (e.g., the resource-based view of the firm and transaction cost economics) or from different underlying disciplines (e.g., social psychology and economics). In either case, the challenge of combining insights from multiple theories is to explain clearly why addressing this research question requires using these theories and how exactly the theories will be joined in a way that creates a unique contribution to the research topic. The need for each additional theory should be clearly explained so as to avoid the impression that theories are being combined ad hoc to justify disparate hypotheses.
There are several possible approaches to combining theories, each with potential advantages and disadvantages. Pitting one theory against another through competing hypotheses and letting the data decide the winner is a widely used approach that must be used with care, as it can leave the reader puzzled as to why one plausible theory should trump another equally plausible theory—especially given the likelihood that both theories enjoy considerable empirical support in the literature (Cooper & Richardson, 1986; Platt, 1964). An alternative approach is one that explains when and why one theory should take precedence over the other, and an especially effective way of doing that is to explain the conditions under which the predictions of each theory are likely to be most applicable and test these predictions empirically. Vanneste and Puranam’s (2010) examination of when a learning effect will have more influence on contract design and distinguishing the learning effect from the effect of trust is an example of this approach.
In many other cases, authors are interested in combining theories to give a more complete account of an organizational phenomenon. Combining implies that the relationship is additive and leads to hypotheses that link different independent variables to dependent variable(s). The risk in this approach is the temptation to specify models combining independent variables simply because, in past research, each has been shown to affect the dependent variable. A conceptual framework that brings the two theoretical perspectives together and articulates their relevant differences is essential. Agarwal, Echambadi, Franco, and Sarkar (2004) made this type of theoretical combination effectively in their analysis of the creation and performance of spin-outs in the disk drive industry. Relatedly, a paper can explain how different theories are most applicable for related research questions that combine to address a particular phenomenon; for example, one theory may explain when a practice will gain traction but another may explain which firms will be the most likely to adopt that practice (e.g., Sherer & Lee, 2002).
A third approach is to seek more integration between two theories. This involves articulating how the two perspectives are complementary—that is, how the assumptions of one theory implicitly require those of the other to be fully realized, and vice versa. This kind of integration requires a thorough understanding of the logic underpinning each theory, and how the two are related has to be articulated before hypotheses are framed. The potential for making a significant contribution depends on whether the integration offers new questions and new insights to each theory and its respective literature. For example, Silverman (1999) integrated elements of transaction cost economics and the resource-based view of the firm in a study of corporate diversification.
We wish to emphasize that using multiple theories can be a very effective way to create strong theory. The challenges of explanatory coherence, however, are greater when the theories utilized are from different base disciplines. Although AMJ encourages multidisciplinary research, the majority of published management papers focus on a single core discipline (Agarwal & Hoetker, 2007). Work integrating ideas from different areas has significant potential to contribute to theory, but the actual integration of the ideas must be carefully done.
Coherence. One of the biggest problems in the development of an effective theory section is explaining why one has chosen a specific set of explanatory variables over others. Without a strong discussion of coherence, readers and reviewers will wonder what holds a theoretical narrative together (Dubin, 1976; Whetten, 1989). The key is to address the question of why these variables (and only those variables) were selected. An effective theory section must explain how these variables fit together in a way that creates a strong and coherent theoretical contribution and doesn’t leave the reader wondering why other variables weren’t included. The proposed hypotheses should be linked a way that creates an overall contribution to the topic. Graebner (2009) did a nice job of weaving together literature from trust and agency theory in a qualitative examination of acquisitions of entrepreneurial firms.
A strong conceptual framework does not require a figure with boxes and arrows to explain how the hypotheses fit together—although a figure can help readers visualize the framework. What matters is that a clear, overarching research question drives the hypotheses, and one explains clearly, by drawing on the underlying theoretical and empirical work on the research topic, how these explanatory variables come together.
What we have said above regarding entering the conversation with previous research leads to the conclusion that persuasive logic is best served by a combination of all three approaches: building on established theory, offering relevant empirical evidence, and explaining how variation in X leads to variation in Y. But explanatory logic serves as the foundation; without it, appeals to existing theory fail to ring true, and offering only empirical evidence leaves the reader wondering “why?” Further, building on established theory can lead to an ex-planation of how, because mediators often flow out of theorizing.
Pitfalls
Having described the core elements of grounding hypotheses, we felt it would be useful to review some of the recurring pitfalls that reviewers identify when evaluating the hypothesis development in a submission. Common pitfalls in grounding hypotheses include lack of specificity, fragmented theorizing, and stating the obvious.
Lack of specificity. Lack of specificity occurs when one’s explanatory logic draws from a theory that speaks to a much broader or more general domain. For example, trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000) offers an explanation of how the attitudes and behaviors associated with personality traits are “activated” in the context of an individual’s social environment. It thus offers an important bridge to researchers who seek to explain attitudes and behaviors in organizations by means of personality traits. However, it is general in its application and, though perhaps necessary to explanation of why a particular ensemble of environmental factors will activate attitudinal and behavioral manifestations of a specific trait, it is not a sufficient explanation. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) offers another example; it can ground one’s logic at a general level (e.g., favors beget reciprocation), but does not clearly ground more specific operationalizations of that relationship (e.g., civility predicts job performance). The particulars and specifics need to be explained—and this guidance applies to all instances in which the domain of the theory one draws on to buttress claims is broader or more general than that of the hypotheses themselves.
Fragmented theorizing. Fragmented theorizing is implied when authors have a model with multiple hypothesized relationships in which each link is supported by logic drawn from a different theory. This approach may be motivated by the mistaken belief that the more theories, the better. Unfortunately, the impression this can create in the minds of reviewers is that the authors are engaging in post hoc theorizing, casting about in the literature for a theory that seems to fit a given hypothesis or, worse still, one that matches the variables on which they have already gathered data. Our observation is not meant to suggest that authors should not use multiple theories to support their hypotheses. Rather, it suggests that support drawn from multiple theories needs to be integrated into a coherent and cohesive explanatory narrative. (See the section on coherence above.)
Stating the obvious. Though it seems counterintuitive, supporting one’s hypotheses so thoroughly that they seem obvious and therefore uninteresting is not uncommon. If a hypothesis states the obvious or makes a claim that is common knowledge, then, although true, it also is likely to be trivial (Davis, 1971). When a reviewer says, “I can’t imagine how or when the null hypothesis could ever be the case,” she or he is making precisely this point. One way to remedy this problem is to flirt with the null hypothesis—that is, reflect on the plausibility of the opposite argument or the absence of a relationship. Then, frame the alternative hypotheses as alternatives to what can be seen as plausible, or even as received wisdom. This entails thoughtfully considering theoretical perspectives that would lend credence to the null. If it proves difficult to frame the null hypotheses as plausible, then your alternatives may in fact be obvious and trivial.
Conclusions
Hypotheses are the heart of a paper, and grounding hypotheses is one of the most important tasks in crafting effective theory. A strong theory section has to effectively engage prior literature, both theoretical and empirical, but must go beyond it to build a strong logical argument. A great deal of thought goes into every paper, and the theory section is key to explaining how one is going to add value to the research topic and why these specific hypotheses make sense individually and fit together to form a coherent conceptual framework.
Raymond T. Sparrowe
Washington University
Kyle J. Mayer
University of Southern California
REFERENCES
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A., & Sarkar, MB. 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spinout generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 501–522.
Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. 2007. A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1304–1322.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Cooper, W., & Richardson, A. 1986. Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 179–184.
Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phe-nomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1:309–344.
Dubin, R. 1976. Theory building in applied areas. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 17–39. Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally.
Graebner, M. E. 2009. Caveat venditor: Trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial firms. Academyof Management Journal, 52: 435–472.
Platt, J.. 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146: 347–353.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2001. A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 219–237.
Sherer, P., & Lee, K. 2002. Institution change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45:102–119.
Silverman, B. S. 1999. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 48: 1109–1124.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371–384.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34: 397–423.
Tyler, T. L., & Blader, S. L. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Vanneste, B. S., & Puranam, P. 2010. Repeated interactions and contractual detail: Identifying the learning
effect. Organization Science, 21: 186–201.
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14:490–495.
END
【免责声明】
1、我们尊重原创，也注重分享。本公众平台原创文章版权归作者和平台共同所有，转载文章其版权归原作者和来源媒体平台所有；
2、本公众平台转载内容包括视频、文章和广告等，仅以信息传播和分享为目的，供感兴趣的读者学习参考之用，未经授权禁止用于商业用途，如无意中侵犯了哪个媒体、公司 、企业或个人等的知识产权，请联系处理；
3、本平台对转载和分享的内容、陈述、观点保持中立，不对所包含内容的真实性、准确性和合法性提供任何明示或暗示的保证，本公众平台将不承担任何责任。
加入学会，共襄盛举！
图文编辑：靳珊 审校：张希贤
欢迎各界朋友赐稿：
学会邮箱 cmau@cmau.org.cn
执委会邮箱 cmau-ec@cmau.org.cn
中国高等院校市场学研究会简介
中国高等院校市场学研究会(Chinese Marketing Association of Universities，英文缩写CMAU)成立于1984年元月，是经中华人民共和国民政部批准，由全国各高等院校从事市场营销学教学、研究的专家、学者及企事业单位自愿组成的非营利性学术团体。学会的主管单位是中华人民共和国教育部，现任会长是北京大学光华管理学院符国群教授。
本会宗旨
团结市场营销理论与实务界人士，遵守国家法律、法规和政策，本着“百花齐放、百家争鸣”的原则，组织各种形式的研讨和交流，为创造、传播新的市场营销知识，为繁荣中国市场营销学术研究，为提升我国企事业单位营销管理水平做出贡献。
业务范围
通过定期（如年会）或不定期（如不同专题的研讨会）的形式，为全国高校从事市场营销教学、研究的专业人员提供交流的机会；
通过出版物，为全国高校从事市场营销教学、研究的专业人员和社会各界的有关人士提供发表研究成果的园地；
组建全国性的市场营销教学、研究案例库、资料库，建立全国性的市场营销研究信息网络；
通过各种方式为社会各界培训市场营销教学、市场营销管理实践人才；
以各种方式为企业界及其他部门提供市场营销相关的专业援助，如咨询等；
收集国内外的市场营销理论的研究动态，与国外有关市场营销研究的机构、团体建立不同形式的合作、交流关系。
学会秘书处
通讯地址：100871海淀区颐和园路5号北京大学光华1号楼
联系电话：010-62757952
Email地址：cmau@cmau.org.cn