1020328

research-article2021
OTT0010.1177/26317877211020328Organization TheoryCornelissen et al.

From the Editors

Organization Theory

What Theory Is and Can Be: Volume 2: 1–19

© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Forms of Theorizing in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020328
DOI: 10.1177/26317877211020328

Organizational Scholarship journals.sagepub.com/home/ott

Joep Cornelissen1, Markus A. Höllerer2

and David Seidl3

Abstract
Theory is at the very heart of organizational scholarship and a key criterion for evaluating the
quality and contribution of our research. Focusing on conceptual rather than empirical work,
this editorial essay highlights the wide range of forms that theorizing might take – and how it, in
consequence, materializes in different types of theory papers. Next to the propositional form of
theory building, which has so far dominated reflections in the literature, we discuss the particularities
of process, configurational, perspectival, and meta-theorizing, as well as various forms of critique.
We demonstrate how these forms of theorizing differ in terms of their aims, style of reasoning,
their contributions, and the way in which they are written up as papers. In view of the rather
different roles that each of these forms of theorizing serve, we propagate, in line with the ethos of
Organization Theory, a pluralistic stance when it comes to advancing theory in organization studies.

Keywords
management research, organization theory, research, scholarship, theorizing, theory

Theory is core to organizational scholarship. phenomena, to form interpretations and expla-

We develop and use theory to make distinctions nations, or to develop informative accounts for
and order our understanding of organizational students, practitioners, and other potential

1
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands & University of Liverpool
Management School, UK
2
UNSW Business School, UNSW Sydney, Australia & WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
3
University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Corresponding author:
Joep Cornelissen, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan,
Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Netherlands.
Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which
permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work
is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Organization Theory 

stakeholders. In the context of published schol- offer a pluralistic and inclusive view of theory.
arly work, theory furthermore forms the ‘cur- In working towards this aim, we also hope to
rency’ in which we trade insights with one ‘de-mystify’ the notion of theory by offering an
another and through which we claim to have accessible overview that takes it away from the
developed a sufficiently novel and distinct con- heavily coded and technical language that often
tribution. And, perhaps just as important, theory characterizes discussions on the subject matter.
may give us personally some sense of belong- We do this by breaking down the subject into
ing and a scholarly identity as we define our- various more readily understood components,
selves and our work in terms of a specific strand including the aims of a theoretical exercise, key
of theorizing. Given this central position of building blocks such as concepts and argumen-
theory in our field, it is surprising how little has tation, and the different genres of writing
been written on what theory is, as well as on the involved. We show how each of these compo-
various processes and components that theoriz- nents links to distinct practices of theorizing
ing consists of. The few texts that exist on the and to conventional ways of developing and
subject involve, for the most part, editorials that forming a theoretical understanding.
either state general expectations for theory The inclusive and practical understanding
papers to be published (Kilduff, 2006; Rindova, of theory that we present here is meant to help
2008) or provide very specific writing-related scholars and to ensure that we, as authors and
advice concerning the overall framing and posi- as reviewers of each other’s work, value and
tioning of a theoretical contribution (Barney, judge the different forms of theorizing for
2018; Lange & Pfarrer, 2017; Patriotta, 2017; what they set out to do and bring to the field of
Ragins, 2012). Instead of giving a direct answer, organization studies. After all, different forms
a well-known editorial even focuses on ‘what of theorizing and different theoretical contri-
theory is not’ (Sutton & Staw, 1995), highlight- butions achieve different things for the field;
ing how authors should not mistake models, they offer distinctive answers to problems and
hypotheses, or references for theory. questions, complement each other in ways that
This lack of an explicit discussion about the- expand our understanding, and, when taken
ory and theorizing is not only surprising but together, stimulate us to remain reflective and
also somewhat problematic as it may lead to open to novel ideas and innovative research
implicit views and intuitions about theory rather questions.
than informed views and more considered per- On this basis, we end our editorial by mak-
spectives. Researchers may, for example, sim- ing a case for pluralism in forms of theorizing
ply equate theory with a set of explanatory as opposed to privileging certain forms of the-
mechanisms (Sutton & Staw, 1995), or with ory over others. We briefly highlight how, as a
law-like relationships (Whetten, 1989) for a field, we can harness such a pluralistic stance
specific phenomenon, which is but one view of and turn it into a distinctive field-specific asset
theory (Abend, 2008; Cornelissen, 2017a). To when it is embraced as an ideal around which
the extent that such implicit associations take organizational researchers work together and
hold and certain views on theory come to domi- complement each other in advancing scholarly
nate while marginalizing others, the field of knowledge.
organization studies is negatively affected.
Against this background, our aim in this edi-
Theory as Conceptualization
torial is to address the question of what theory
is, and how, based on a comprehensive under- Theory is effectively an ‘umbrella concept’
standing of theory, we can see theory reflected (Suddaby, 2014) or a ‘container term’ (Sandberg
in different forms of theorizing and in different & Alvesson, 2021) – something that was recog-
theory papers published in Organization Theory nized decades ago by Merton (1967, p. 39)
and elsewhere. In line with this, our aim is to when he wrote that
Cornelissen et al. 3

like so many words that are bandied around, the academics are focusing on the ‘forest’, whereas
word theory threatens to become meaningless. practitioners and journalists are understandably
Because its referents are so diverse – including more focused on the ‘trees’.
everything from minor working hypotheses, Besides a difference in interests, theoretical
through comprehensive but vague and unordered
claims can provide not only other academics
speculations to axiomatic systems of thought –
but also students, practitioners, and journalists
use of the word often obscures rather than creates
understanding. with insights that deepen or extend their under-
standing by offering them a way to think better
or differently about something (Corley & Gioia,
While it is certainly true that the term theory
2011; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021). Theoretical
has multiple and different meanings, it is still
claims may, for example, show how things gen-
possible to identify some core aspects that are
erally hang together and how the specific expe-
shared across these different meanings.
riences students, practitioners, or journalists
Leaving aside the way the term is used in
have had, or cases they are familiar with, can be
everyday language, where it often denotes
understood and explained as instances of a
knowledge that is speculative or untested (‘the-
more general pattern or structure.
ory versus practice’) or personally held
The work that researchers do to form such
(Thomas, 1997), in the academic realm ‘theory’ theoretical claims involves a range of different
refers to the scholarly work that researchers do activities, such as abstracting, relating, ideal-
in pursuit of making informed knowledge izing, synthesizing, hypothesizing, and for-
claims. The informed nature of these claims malizing (Weick, 1995). Indeed, different
refers here to the fact that researchers make a forms of theorizing, as we discuss below in
qualified assertion regarding how something more detail, will highlight some of these activ-
can generally be understood or explained, or ities more than others. One type of activity,
indeed how they argue it should be compared to conceptualization, is however core to all forms
familiar or more limited understandings. The of theorizing and the theoretical representa-
strength of researchers’ claims rests directly on tions or accounts that they give rise to. It is
the scholarly work that they have done, and also such a major part of all forms of theoriz-
how this has been articulated in a paper; for ing that we believe it can for all intents and
example, in sharply defining concepts or con- purposes be considered on pragmatic grounds
structs, in developing a coherent set of explana- as theory writ large.
tions, or by offering a compelling point of What does conceptualization consist of?
critique that counters past thinking on a topic. Simply put, conceptualization is the act of
The knowledge claim is in terms of its focus researchers naming and framing the ‘topic’ that
and content also generally understood as clearly they are interested in, or studying, in terms of
marking an academic or intellectual interest specific theoretical concepts, as the ‘resource’
that differentiates it from the interests of others (Garfinkel, 1960). This inference, or ‘concep-
such as students, practitioners, or business jour- tual leap’, from topic to resource is one that is
nalists (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021; Makadok, foundational to all forms of theorizing, but one
Burton, & Barney, 2018; Nicolai & Seidl, that has often received little attention as it has
2010). Researchers are interested in the general often been cast as ‘only a preliminary step’ to
structure or character of events in the social other more specific activities such as formulat-
world, whereas practitioners and journalists are ing propositions or forming an explanation
interested in specific cases (e.g. a specific (Krause, 2016, p. 27; Swedberg, 2016).
organization, such as Amazon) or in the specific But because it is such a central activity, and
manifestation of something (e.g. a decision by one upon which in fact a whole range of other
Jeff Bezos as the CEO of Amazon). As Makadok activities (such as indeed the forming of expla-
and colleagues (2018) describe this difference, nations) depends, it is worth clarifying what
4 Organization Theory 

such conceptualization entails. First of all, con- generality’ (Luker, 2008, p. 138). They abstract
ceptualization involves an act of categorization out from the particulars of a chosen topic and
through which a researcher decides what the move, based on how they have categorized it, to
topic is more generally a case of; such as decid- a more general way of considering and under-
ing, for example, whether particular instances standing the topic as a theoretical subject
of talk in an organization, as a topic, can be best (Suddaby, 2010, 2014). Particular instances of
conceptualized through the conceptual resource talk, for example, come to be conceptually rep-
of, say, identity, roles, or discourse. Such con- resented as general forms of identity work in
ceptual resources may vary in their contents and organizations. Such abstraction thus implies at
intellectual development, but generally speak- the same time a choice of conceptualizing some-
ing they provide a set of concepts or constructs thing in a specific way. Researchers effectively
(such as identity) as well as a set of relation- decide to cover the topic from a vantage point
ships between such concepts as part of a larger and draw on the resource to give this shape and
theoretical discourse or vocabulary (such as to build up a theoretical conceptualization.
identity work). Resources may be ‘given’ by the They incorporate concepts,1 key assump-
existing literature around a topic, effectively tions, and perhaps some other discursive mark-
providing researchers with a readily available ers (i.e. labels and qualifiers) from the resource
set of concepts and vocabularies that they can to theoretically qualify and define the topic as a
draw on and mobilize to conceptualize the theoretical subject, and as distinct and bounded
topic. But it is also possible for researchers to from other ways of theoretically framing the
look elsewhere and to deviate from the existing topic. Such a conceptualization may rest on a
vocabulary structure around a topic (Höllerer, direct and seemingly natural theoretical fram-
Jancsary, Barberio, & Meyer, 2020). ing of considering the topic ‘as’ an instance of
Researchers may conceptualize a topic in a new the resource (such as our example of consider-
or different way; for example, by using their ing individually uttered talk as instances of
own (first principles) reasoning to induce a dif- identity work), but it may also involve an ide-
ferent theoretical framing or by drawing in con- alization of casting the topic ‘as if’ it followed
cepts and theoretical discourses as novel in some key respects the tenets of the resource
resources from other domains and literatures (such as seeing individual talk perhaps as an
(Cornelissen & Durand, 2014). exemplar of Lacanian themes of fantasy and
Conceived in this way, a ‘topic’ refers to a enjoyment). Such an idealization, connecting
phenomenon in the real or phenomenological topic and resource, may perhaps seem less
world that exists as separate from, and prior to, straightforward, but it is a common form of
our conceptualizations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, conceptualization that forms the basis of many
& Podsakoff, 2016). Many conceptualizations established theories of organizations (Ketokivi,
indeed involve topics that signify something Mantere, & Cornelissen, 2017), such as seeing
that directly exists or is experienced as such, for organizations, for example, ‘“as if” they follow
example, conceptualizing platform organiza- the value maximization rule of a single eco-
tions (as a topic) through the resource of design nomic agent’ (Fama & Jensen, 1985, p. 101), or
theory (Vergne, 2020). But the topic in a paper ‘as if’ they behave as responsible ‘social actors’
may also involve a previously qualified theoreti- who respond to the various demands placed on
cal subject, such as, for example, conceptualiz- them by society (Bromley & Meyer, 2021;
ing organizational sensemaking, as a topic, Lounsbury & Wang, 2020).
through yet a further theoretical resource of phe- While the conceptualization of a topic may
nomenology (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2020). In start as a hunch or intuitive leap, it needs to be
both cases, however, by categorizing a topic in articulated in natural language to enable com-
terms of a resource, researchers move to a theo- munication with other researchers. Through the
retical level and ‘bump things up a level of act of writing, conceptualization in fact often
Cornelissen et al. 5

takes further shape. When researchers contextu- define theory as an explanation for a set of rela-
alize their ideas in a paper and present the ‘com- tionships between constructs and discuss in turn
mon ground’ around a topic, it helps them processes of theorizing and criteria for evalua-
articulate for themselves and others what based tion proper to such a definition. This is a situa-
on prior knowledge the motivation is for the tion that we wish to avoid. We furthermore use
conceptualization that they propose themselves the word theorizing differently than how Weick
(Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997). Their own (1995) and Swedberg (2016) have talked about
thinking and reasoning may become sharper in theorizing as ‘interim struggles’ or ‘placemark-
the process, allowing researchers to define con- ers’ before arriving at a formal, grand theory
cepts more clearly (Suddaby, 2014) and to state that maximally explains something and has pre-
a compelling set of grounds for their proposed dictive value as well. We rather use the term
conceptualization (Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013). here as encompassing different practices, each
In summary, conceptualization is, as an of which produces its own distinct theoretical
activity, extremely powerful. When researchers contributions and knowledge claims. Different
use a resource to theorize, they effectively cast forms of theorizing, as practices, effectively
a topic as an exemplary instance of the resource. provide different forms of understanding – spe-
In doing so, they also conceptually integrate the cifically, different forms of explanation, inter-
two (seeing the topic in terms of the resource), pretation, and emancipation. And as we will
which in turn enables researchers to make theo- highlight below, their differences are what actu-
retical inferences about the topic. This integra- ally allow us to say more complicated and
tion is what allows researchers, for example, to enriching things than any one form alone could
ask theoretically informed questions about the provide, particularly when we truly value and
topic and provides them with the means to consider the contributions that each of these
develop theoretical insights. Without such inte- forms of theorizing has to offer.
gration, any form of theorizing would be hard if This practice-based view of theorizing is con-
not impossible. sistent with the roots of the word in the Greek
theoria and its different interpretations. Theoria
was practised when individuals (the theoroi)
Forms of Theorizing travelled outside of their city-state and attended
Conceptualization is, as already mentioned, an spectacles and events such as religious celebra-
important building block for many different tions or athletic competitions. Theoroi made a
forms of theorizing. For example, empirical journey or pilgrimage, and having gained these
hypothesis-testing papers directly build on con- formative experiences, as a resource, returned
ceptualization, with hypotheses being the logi- home as changed persons. Modern scientific
cal entailments of the framing that is offered. In understandings appropriated this image suggest-
this section, we elaborate these different forms ing that theoroi, as astute, independent observ-
of theorizing in the context of theory papers, ers, are, with the help of the knowledge that they
recognizing differences in aims and approaches, have gained, better able to explain how things
and helping authors grasp these distinctions. worked (see Reed, 2011). Gadamer (1975) cri-
In our choice of terminology, we here delib- tiqued this rational-scientific view and defined
erately centre on ‘theorizing’ rather than ‘the- theoria instead as a hermeneutic practice. He
ory’. The reason for doing so is simple; if we framed the theoroi as part of their surroundings,
were to base ourselves on a definition of theory using their resources to provide a deep interpre-
and used that as a standard for elaborating pro- tation of topics and transforming the understand-
cesses of theorizing this would direct our atten- ing of others as well of themselves in the process.
tion to certain forms of theorizing only. To Habermas (1972, pp. 303–304) similarly cri-
illustrate, most classic writings (Bacharach, tiqued the rational-scientific view as providing a
1989; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989) ‘severance of knowledge from interest’ and as
6 Organization Theory 

neglecting the core of the theoria metaphor (in Finally, the emancipatory interest involves
Plato and Aristotle) which connected the theo- yet another approach. Within this form of theo-
retical imagination to the human interest in rizing, researchers use theoretical resources in
emancipation. critical ways to expose the politics and political
These alternate conceptualizations of the constraints that are implicit in organizational
theoria metaphor are instructive; different life and to highlight the limits to our current
forms of theorizing, as practices, are tied into ways of thinking about topics. Researchers
different knowledge interests. Consistent with effectively (re)configure theoretical resources
the history and traditions of the human and into a well-articulated critique of our current
social sciences (e.g. D’Andrade, 1986; theoretical understandings about topics and
Habermas, 1972; Zald, 1991), we think it is theoretically speculate about viable alterna-
helpful to distinguish between interests that are tives for reform. Like interpretive theorizing,
geared towards explanation, interpretation, and this form of theorizing produces ‘deep’ inter-
emancipation (see Table 1). All three kinds of pretations of topics but does so by expanding
interests, as we aim to show, build on conceptu- the theoretical conversation in a normative
alization but do so in different ways and involve direction.
researchers using different styles of reasoning We elaborate these different forms of theo-
consistent with their interest. rizing below and reference how they take shape
With an explanatory interest, researchers in different theory papers. When we speak of
engage in forms of theorizing to reveal the fun- different forms of theorizing, this is not meant
damental forces and structures of organizational to be understood in a formulaic manner with
life that lie beneath the surface phenomena, as each form designating a well-defined ‘model’
topics, that we observe, experience, and narrate. that clearly distinguishes it from other forms.
In this vein, existing theories are used by Rather, we use the label more loosely here;
researchers to conceptualize and order topics, more as ideal-typical descriptions of common
and they use specific forms of reasoning (such forms of theorizing, drawing on our experience
as propositional reasoning) to progressively as editors and on papers published in
zoom in on the underlying causal forces or Organization Theory. However, it is important
mechanisms that explain the manifestation, to realize that when writing theory papers,
dynamics, and outcomes of the topic. authors may veer between these forms, or may
We speak of an interpretive interest when the in some instances follow a different trajectory
researcher is concerned with theoretically re- altogether and write up their paper in a rather
arranging processes of signification and repre- different form.
sentation, the layers of social meaning that
shape experiences and actions within organiza-
Explanatory forms of theorizing
tional life. Based on this interest, researchers
use conceptual resources in novel and creative A fundamental premise of explanatory forms of
ways to generate theoretical abstractions that theorizing is that theory is used to identify and
provide novel coherent perspectives on a topic establish the fundamental processes and struc-
and allow us to read and interpret social life tures that ‘underlie’ and therefore explain a given
within and across organizations differently, or topic (Sutton & Staw, 1995). As such, theory
in a more encompassing manner than before. draws its strength from coherently conceptualiz-
And by reflexively revealing the ways in which ing a topic, as its referent, and from drawing out
social meanings and actions are formed, as with ever greater theoretical precision and
opposed to reducing them to a causal force, this nuance a set of explanations for this topic. The
interpretive mode offers, compared to the assumption here of course is that there are under-
explanatory interest, a more synthetic approach lying mechanisms, or structures, that explain
to knowledge and understanding. what happens or has happened within and around
Table 1. Overview of forms of theorizing.

Propositional Configurational Process Perspectival Meta-theorizing Theoretical Critical meta-

Cornelissen et al.

theorizing theorizing theorizing theorizing provocation theorizing

Definition A style of A style of A style of An interpretive An interpretive An emancipatory An emancipatory
theorizing that theorizing that theorizing style of theorizing style of theorizing style of theorizing style of theorizing
identifies and interrelates that plots the that re-frames our that interrogates that aims to that critiques
elaborates basic interdependencies sequencing conceptualizations the theoretical provoke interest the theoretical
contingencies between concepts of events and of a topic through categories, biases, in topics of social categories, biases,
(as (as configurations)
outcomes (as an alternative and and assumptions concern and and assumptions
propositions) that explain a processes) deeper reading in organizational by questioning in organizational
that explain a topic that explain a theorizing as a taken-for-granted theorizing as a
topic topic practice assumptions practice
Knowledge interest Explanation – Explanation – Explanation – Interpretation – the Interpretation – Emancipation Emancipation
the formulated the formulated the elaborated (re)conceptualization the deep reading – the critique – the synthesis
propositions configurations trajectories of a topic and synthesis of of default and critique of
conceptualize conceptualize conceptualize fosters renewed existing categories assumptions existing categories
relationships of alternate alternate understandings and of theorizing around a topic of theorizing
cause and effect causal paths causal paths creates opportunities creates reflexivity and their creates reflexivity
and theorize and theorize and theorize for knowledge and provides implications and provides an
underlying underlying underlying development pointers to leading to a ardent call for
processes and processes and processes and through novel alternative ways theory-informed alternative ways
structures as structures as structures as questions or of studying and basis for action of studying and
mechanisms mechanisms mechanisms concepts knowing topics and change knowing topics
Style of reasoning Formal- Formal-analytical Formal- Interpretive- Interpretive- Critical-synthetic Critical-synthetic
analytical analytical synthetic synthetic
Stance of the researcher Objective/ Objective/neutral Objective/ Involved Involved Involved-personal Involved-personal
neutral neutral
Level of abstraction Medium (topic- Medium (topic- Medium Medium to high High (universal Medium to high High (universal
based) based) (topic-based) system) system)
7
8 Organization Theory 

organizations, thus granting researchers the pos- field of organization studies the idiom involves
sibility of waging theory to form explanations as instead a form of deliberate reasoning that
well as potentially make predictions based on the explains a topic by parsing it into a set of spe-
strength of their explanations. cific contingent statements (‘if, then’ arguments,
As a practice, explanatory theorizing pro- or general statements of a logical association
poses what for many will be a familiar way of between certain constructs) that, as mentioned,
working in pursuit of such explanations. First, it are derived from a particular conceptualization
suggests that for theory to do its work it needs to and then elaborate and qualify why and how
reference social reality. While theorizing can go something generally happens. An example of
beyond the surface of a phenomenon, as a topic, this style in Organization Theory is the paper by
to get to fundamental processes and structures, Roulet and Pichler (2020), in which they develop
explanations need to be tied back to, and indeed a set of theoretically driven propositions to
grounded in, a phenomenon as a topic. As such, explain when and how through the discursive
explanatory theorizing cannot become too strategies that an organization employs follow-
abstract theoretically and needs to stay tuned in ing a misconduct accusation it can strategically
its level of abstraction to specific topics. Second, shift the blame to others or even deny that any
as part of its approach, researchers assume an form of misconduct has taken place.
objective stance of looking from the outside in Another common style of explanatory theoriz-
at a topic, revealing its fundamental operations. ing involves configurational theorizing. In this
They do so by using a seemingly neutral and style, researchers intentionally aim to theorize
objective ‘formal’ form of theoretical reasoning about how multiple concepts or constructs com-
(such as propositional or configurational reason- bine into distinct configurations that explain why
ing) where arguments stand on their own ground and how something occurs (Furnari et al., 2021).
and as separate from their own values and norms Configurational theorizing aims to account for
as researchers and human beings. And third, ‘multifaceted interdependencies’ between con-
because of its aim of maximizing the explana- cepts or constructs which contrasts with a propo-
tory strength of theory, theorizing tends to sitional style which tends to focus in a more linear
revolve around a limited and tightly defined set manner on ‘bivariate relations’ (Furnari et al.,
of topics, as a broader problem area, as well as 2021). With this style, researchers thus intention-
around an equally limited set of corresponding ally complexify things by working from alternate
theoretical resources. The hard work of forming conceptualizations while ‘anchoring’ themselves
ever more detailed explanations discourages on a topic (Furnari et al., 2021). These possible
researchers from continuously introducing new conceptualizations can be given by literatures and
topics and questions, and also incentivizes them prior research, but also require that researchers
to mine the theoretical resources that they use their own imagination and reasoning to figure
already have at their disposal. out why and how concepts may be coherently
A particularly common style of explanatory connected around a topic. Once they have made
theorizing involves the development of explana- this leap and have identified coherently linked
tory arguments through the formulation of prop- clusters of concepts, the subsequent step is for
ositions (Cornelissen, 2017b). With this style, researchers to link and name the underlying pro-
researchers work from a familiar resource or set cesses at work so that they can offer a clearly
of theoretical resources for their basic conceptu- specified set of underlying ‘mechanisms’ as
alization, and elaborate on the back of this fram- explanations. A good example of this style in
ing a set of arguments that are theoretically Organization Theory is Fisher’s (2020) paper on
consistent with such a conceptualization. While the socially complex, interactive process of entre-
the name of the style may suggest a formal lan- preneurs establishing new ventures and seeking
guage of deducing conclusions from axioms to gain legitimacy for their endeavours. The arti-
(i.e. stylized theoretical presuppositions), in the cle demonstrates how different features (such as
Cornelissen et al. 9

audience diversity, optimal distinctiveness, mar- explain a topic. Building on prior theoretical
ket category evolution, and legitimacy thresh- work, researchers use these styles to elaborate
olds) contract into different configurations that and further qualify a set of theory-informed
present different pathways for entrepreneurs to explanations. Because of this link to past work,
achieve legitimacy. most contributions tend to be written up as sci-
A final style of explanatory theorizing that entific articles that have a standard structure of
we wish to highlight here is process theorizing. first introducing a topic, followed by a theo-
With this style of theorizing, researchers explore retical background section, one or more sec-
when and how something comes about, but do tions on the development of the core arguments,
so from a temporal perspective. This process and ending with a discussion of the paper’s
idiom2 is like the propositional and configura- contributions and implications for theory (see
tional styles focused on identifying generative Barney, 2018; Lange & Pfarrer, 2017;
‘mechanisms’ that explain why something Makadok et al., 2018). When we in turn assess
occurs (Cornelissen, 2017b). However, com- the contributions of such explanatory papers
pared to the other two it is less uniformly as reviewers and readers, we tend to judge
focused on explaining a particular ‘outcome of them among other things on the strength of the
interest’ (Cloutier & Langley, 2020) and focuses formal reasoning in the manuscript, such as
more broadly instead on the enabling condi- the theoretical motivation for the proposed
tions and processes through which something conceptualization, the overall coherence of the
emerges (see also Pentland, Mahringer, Dittrich, arguments, and the clarity of concept defini-
Feldman, & Wolf, 2020). In their paper in tions (Suddaby, 2010). We also tend to assess
Organization Theory, Cloutier and Langley these kinds of papers on the extent to which a
(2020) highlight four types of process theoriz- manuscript is seen to significantly advance our
ing that researchers may use: a linear style that current explanations of a topic. Such advances
focuses on specifying linear stage-based mod- can be about constructively complicating a
els; a parallel style that elaborates how two lin- given set of explanations, as forms of configu-
ear trajectories are connected (through for rational and process theorizing tend to do, or
example co-evolution or bifurcation); a recur- about addressing boundary conditions and
sive style that specifies ongoing cycles of adap- zooming in further on the details of a specific
tation or reproduction (through for example ‘mechanism’.
ongoing interactions or system dynamics); and
a conjunctive style that deliberately breaks
down pre-established distinctions and dualisms
Interpretive forms of theorizing
and focuses on the continuous emergence of A second form of theorizing takes its inspiration
organizational entities and events (often cap- from interpretivism. It takes as its main premise
tured with performative images of entangle- that theorizing should provide a deep reading
ment, meshwork, or assemblage). The first two and understanding of the circumstances in which
types, they remark, are still geared towards people find themselves, working through the
explaining an outcome of interest, whereas the layers of meaning that constitute our experience
latter two styles imply a strong process view of organizations. Instead of trying to establish a
that is focused on explaining ‘temporally general, coherent, and referential set of theo-
embedded interactive contingencies that might rized mechanisms, interpretive theorizing sug-
drive events and activities in different direc- gests a different approach. In fact, it does not
tions’ (Cloutier & Langley, 2020, p. 5). directly aim to answer questions of ‘what is’ or
In short, explanatory theorizing involves ‘what determines’, but rather aims to approach
researchers using different styles of formal such questions indirectly, as effectively medi-
reasoning to develop theory that aims to ated through processes of social construction.
10 Organization Theory 

As a practice, interpretive theorizing therefore is to generate a fresh theoretical per-

involves researchers being reflexive and asking spective that jumpstarts research into a relevant
themselves why, as scholars, we think of topics but hitherto largely neglected topic. Where some
in particular ways (Alvesson & Sandberg, perspective pieces are built around the introduc-
2011), and whether there may be value in re- tion of a new topic in this way, others depart pri-
signifying our forms of understanding in alter- marily from a re-signifying of prior theorizing on
native yet coherent ways. Re-signifying is an an already given topic, such as leadership or rou-
interpretive activity by which a researcher tines (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). In these
recontextualizes a topic, and our previous ways cases, the objective of the paper is to redirect a
of theorizing about it, into alternative, deeper line of inquiry into an interesting and theoreti-
meanings that are historically and socially situ- cally promising direction; such as, for example,
ated. This re-signification effectively involves Arora-Jonsson and colleagues (2020) reframing
moving from one set of social meanings (such competition as an organizational as opposed to a
as our current theoretical writings on a topic) to strictly economic phenomenon, or Glaser and
another set of social meanings (such as what colleagues (2021, p. 1) offering a ‘performativity-
such writing signifies more generally); from the inspired biographical perspective’ on algorithms
‘surface’ meanings that are easily inferred to the as opposed to seeing them as ‘self-contained
‘deep’ meanings that require much more inter- computational tools’. The main challenge for
pretive work to identify and access. Interpretive researchers writing such a perspective piece is to
theorizing not only allows for, but in fact stimu- show simultaneously the limitations of prior the-
lates, theoretical abstractions and creative forms ory and theoretical assumptions (as the surface-
of reframing as these may suggest possible new level, default reading), as well as the promise of
ways of thinking about our theorizing, and of an alternative, re-signified framing that offers an
how we may study certain topics (Geertz, alternative, more holistic or deeper understanding
2000). Indeed, a hallmark of interpretive theo- of the topic (as the proposed deeper reading).
rizing is its openness to alternative conceptual- Delivering on both fronts in the same paper by
izations and to bringing in new topics. Where coherently linking alternate theoretical readings
explanatory forms of theorizing tend to be ‘pro- is generally difficult (Geertz, 2000). A good
grammatic’ in advancing a particular strand of example of a paper that has succeeded in doing
theorizing around a given set of topics that have this is Vergne’s (2020) novel theoretical take on
historically defined a field, interpretive theoriz- platform organizations. In his perspective piece,
ing encourages researchers to introduce new Vergne critiques prior theorizing in economic
topics that better reflect and capture our pre- strategy and law and reformulates classic deci-
sent-day experiences of organizations. sion-making and organizational design theory to
A first style of interpretive theorizing is what make it amenable to the study of such novel
we label perspectival theorizing. When research- organizational forms.
ers write a perspective piece, they introduce a A second style of interpretive theorizing is
new topic into our theoretical conversation, re- meta-theorizing. This form of theorizing turns
signify prior theorizing, or do both as a way of the attention of researchers away from our ordi-
showing the promise of a novel line of inquiry. nary theoretical activity at the surface level to
Oftentimes, the topics they suggest are based on the enterprise of organizational theorizing itself.
significant developments or events (for instance, The style has researchers going beyond linking
robotization of work, the gig economy, or so- theoretical resources to topics and reflecting
called ‘grand challenges’) and which they show more deeply on what these theoretical catego-
through their conceptualization are not yet ade- ries themselves signify, what they believe
quately reflected in prior theorizing about similar instead organizational theorizing should be
problems (see, for instance, Ferraro, Etzion, & aiming for, and how it ought to be conducted.
Gehman, 2015). The objective of such pieces Being reflexive at this level has researchers
Cornelissen et al. 11

reflecting on the deeper assumptions and unre- surface-level categories?); whether it differs
flective, tacit biases – what Gadamer (1975) enough from prior readings and understandings
calls ‘prejudgments’ – that have guided past that already exist in the field; and whether it
theorizing; biases which form threats and chal- generates sufficiently new insights and further
lenges to the validity and strength of our knowl- conceptual material to direct further theorizing
edge claims. They may reflect for instance on and research. Finally, it is worth noticing that
the root assumptions or value orientations that papers that are written in the tradition of inter-
are implicit in our current theoretical resources. pretive theorizing tend to follow less of a stand-
Benschop (2021), for example, surveys the ard template than those in the explanatory
dominant root assumptions on gender, class, tradition. Papers will of course centrally feature
and race that have influenced research on ine- a synthesis of theoretical resources as well as a
quality, technology, and climate change, and proposed re-signification, but in some cases
offers a re-signification of such categories using these parts may be written up as separate sec-
feminist theory. Through re-signification, meta- tions, and in other instances may be meshed
theorizing offers at once a synthesis of past into one single section (see, for instance,
research as well as a deeper reading of the theo- Benschop, 2021). We also noticed that in some
retical resources that have been routinely used. cases perspective papers may still be structured
Such a synthesis may as a theoretical abstrac- and written up as somewhat analogous to a sci-
tion be somewhat less ‘close to the ground’ entific article (see, for instance, Cooren, 2020),
(Winch, 1958) but it has, as in the above exam- whereas in other cases the paper is more essay-
ple (Benschop, 2021), direct downstream con- istic in nature involving a more continuous flow
sequences for the practice of organizational between sections.
theorizing.
In short, interpretive forms of theorizing
Emancipatory forms of theorizing
involve researchers using a set of interpretive
techniques to reflect on our current theoretical The third form of theorizing that we discuss
resources and to imagine from within our sys- here is critical, emancipatory theorizing. This
tem of theorizing alternative ways of studying practice has, compared to the other two, a more
topics. Such techniques are less formalized and overt political role in challenging existing sys-
codified than the styles of reasoning common to tems of belief, in our theories and in the world
explanatory theorizing. They also assume an of practice, and to subvert such systems towards
active role for researchers in being reflexive emancipation and potential reform. Essentially,
and in using processes of theoretical abstrac- emancipatory forms of theorizing involve
tion, speculation, and thought experimentation researchers bringing to bear the critical force of
(Kornberger & Mantere, 2020) through which well-articulated theoretical utopias (i.e. images
existing theory is recast and potentially new of how things could be or should be) upon those
theory is being generated. In this way, interpre- belief systems, drawing out how either in the
tive theorizing can be an important source of realm of our theorizing or in practice such
theory building and of injecting new theory and beliefs lead us astray, divide or undermine peo-
topics into the field. ple, or otherwise limit what may be possible.
Reflecting this potential, when we judge the Emancipatory theorizing has many com-
contribution of theory papers in this tradition, monalities with interpretive theorizing. It simi-
we may think of criteria such as coherence, dif- larly reaches to a ‘meta’-level, recognizes the
ferentiability, and generativity. For example, we historical and social nature of our theoretical
may ask whether the theoretical re-signification knowledge, and employs re-signification as a
that is offered is coherent (i.e. is the deeper key technique. Both forms of theorizing are
reading that is offered internally logically con- also critical in that they interrogate a current
sistent, and does it also coherently recast state of affairs and question received wisdom.
12 Organization Theory 

Indeed, they employ as we will show many of (interpretive) meta-theorizing, but equally with
the same theorizing practices, but with a nota- a decidedly more normative orientation.
ble difference between them (Habermas, 1972). A theoretical provocation operates like a
The key difference to other forms of theoriz- perspective piece in that it either highlights a
ing is that emancipatory theorizing is shot through problematic development in society, as a new
with a concern for ideals and values in theory and topic that we should discuss and embrace as
practice. It shows this concern by revealing the organizational researchers, or problematizes
structures of domination and human constraints and questions our existing ways of theorizing,
that are inscribed into our current beliefs (which or indeed does both in the same paper. The dif-
may variably be expressed as suppressed forms ference with perspectival theorizing is that a
of consciousness, ideas, discourses, or bodily theoretical provocation has a clear utopian ref-
behaviours), and by trying to make a real, practi- erent, condemning a current state of affairs and
cal difference through identifying the potentiali- making the case for action towards a better
ties and possibilities for emancipation and reform. alternative. An example of a theoretical provo-
Emancipatory theorizing is simply more norma- cation that is largely centred around the intro-
tive in nature than interpretive forms of theoriz- duction of a new topic is Spicer’s (2020) paper
ing and focuses on what the theorizing may in Organization Theory on the rise of ‘bullshit-
practically lead to or change. This normative ori- ting’ in organizations and society. Spicer theo-
entation marks a shift in the role of the researcher, rizes about how bullshitting as a language game
who is not just a member of the research com- has an exponentially expanding and largely
munity but is her/himself involved in the quest negative impact on organizations and for
for emancipation, and thus ‘positioned and active’ employees trying to find meaning and purpose
(Deetz, 1996, p. 197). Indeed, papers in the tradi- at work. Besides this topic, one can think of
tion of emancipatory theorizing tend to be written many other societal developments, such as pre-
up as critical or provocative essays that reflect the carious labour, workplace racism, inequalities
involved role of the author through an active in pay, gender discrimination, and other forms
voice and tone. A further notable difference is that of societal exclusion that are not yet sufficiently
whereas interpretive theorizing focuses on theo- covered in our theorizing. Theoretical provoca-
retical abstraction and synthesis, emancipatory tions may bring such topics into the conversa-
theorizing is bent on using theory to create ‘an tion, with the emancipatory drive in many
opening’ (Deetz, 1996). The emphasis is on ‘the instances being to uncover and reveal aspects of
generative capacity (the ability to challenge guid- marginalization, exclusion, and suppression in
ing assumptions, values, social practices, and organizations and society.
routines)’ of theory compared to a focus on theo- Besides covering new topics, theoretical
retical coherence and ‘representational validity’ provocations often involve a strong critique of
as in interpretive theorizing (Deetz, 1996, pp. past theorizing as well. Such papers problema-
197–198). tize in particular the emphases, values, and
While emancipatory and interpretive theoriz- moral orientations that have been implicit in the
ing differ in terms of their overall intent, they theoretical resources that we have been using
do, as mentioned, share many of the same theo- (Hamann et al., 2020). Their critique, in other
rizing practices. Indeed, the two styles of eman- words, is levelled at the deeper-level paradig-
cipatory theorizing that we have chosen to matic, ideological (i.e. political, moral- or
highlight here parallel the two interpretive styles diversity-related), and root-metaphor assump-
that we have discussed previously. The first tions of a theoretical resource (Alvesson &
emancipatory style of theoretical provocation is Sandberg, 2011). For example, in Organization
similar to perspectival theorizing in many ways Theory, Nyberg (2021) documents the rise of
– but with a different purpose and contribution. corporate power and its corroding influence on
Likewise, critical meta-theorizing is similar to democracies (as a topic) and criticizes the way
Cornelissen et al. 13

in which the predominant orientation in our point, deconstructing and mapping existing
theorizing on the topic (through resources such strands of theorizing and bodies of literature
as ‘corporate political activity’ and ‘political based on their paradigmatic or ideological
CSR’) has made us blind to this process and assumptions. Another noticeable difference is
more than just innocent bystanders. Nyberg how critical meta-theorizing tends to draw on
(2021) offers, in turn, a compelling re-significa- theoretical resources and figures from social
tion of corporate involvement and influence theory and political philosophy (for instance,
using theories of power and democracy, and in post-colonialism, post-modernism, Marxist
doing so provokes us into a different stance and thought, feminist and queer theory; Foucault,
into asking different questions to protect the Habermas, Deleuze, etc.) as part of its critique
institution of democracy and civic life in gen- and synthesis of prior work and in the re-signi-
eral. Another illustration of a theoretical provo- fication that it proposes. These resources are
cation is Janssens and Zanoni’s (2021) critique drawn in to provide the ‘deep’ reading that
of past diversity theorizing and research. They illuminates the limiting or harmful assump-
problematize the ideological assumptions and tions in past work and are then leveraged to
root economic images of the firm underlying create an opening towards change. In this way,
much diversity research which, they argue, the researcher brings together the intellectual
makes prior theorizing incapable of conceptual- force of social theory and political philosophy
izing the obligations that firms have towards with the utopian and emancipatory possibili-
diversity in the networks of economic activity ties that are present in our prior theorizing
(such as global supply chains) in which they are about organizations. A telling example of such
embedded. Janssens and Zanoni (2021, p. 1) critical meta-theorizing is the article by
present in turn a thought-provoking re-signifi- Banerjee and Arjaliès (2021) in which they use
cation that offers ‘re-conceptualizations of post-colonial theory to deconstruct Western
diversity and open[s] up possibilities for new ideas such as the Anthropocene and Gaia
conversations and politics of action to make which have been proposed as ways of over-
diversity research matter for social change’. coming the separation between human organi-
Both papers make an ardent call for researchers zations and the natural environment. Through
to ‘see’ things differently; from a different van- their deconstruction, they show how these
tage point and with a different set of values much-touted ideas effectively perpetuate
guiding our theorizing and research. Many Western Enlightenment ideas of rationality
provocations combine, as in these examples, a that carry colonial legacies, further separate
critique with an implicit or explicit appeal humans and organizations from their environ-
towards an alternative way of theorizing as the ment, and foster instrumental and economic
utopian ideal. However, it may also be possible ways of ‘dealing with’ nature. They call in turn
for a provocation to ‘just’ or primarily reveal an for alternative decolonial imaginaries to guide
objectionable state of affairs (as a dystopia) further research on sustainability and the eco-
through a critique or polemic (e.g. Tourish, logical crisis in organization studies. Their
2020), providing that as a theoretical provoca- paper also demonstrates an important point
tion it is well argued and offers sufficient depth about critical meta-theorizing: that such papers
and insight in itself. do not just score points or argue on the basis of
A second style of emancipatory theorizing the intellectual authority associated with par-
is critical meta-theorizing. This style is analo- ticular sources (i.e. particular strands of social
gous to interpretive meta-theorizing but has a theory and political philosophy or certain
more distinct emancipatory character. One social theorists), but put such sources to use as
way in which this becomes evident is in the part of offering a compelling critique and a
way in which it critically interrogates and syn- strident call for reflection and action (see also
thesizes past work from a value-based vantage Hamann et al., 2020).
14 Organization Theory 

With its distinct normative orientation, eman- of these different forms of theorizing. We need to
cipatory theorizing plays an essential role in the be appreciative of their differences and judge
production of knowledge. It confronts us with them on their own terms. This recognition also
ourselves, making us aware of the values and implies that we should not, as readers, reviewers,
norms that we have been perpetuating in our the- and editors, automatically fall back on a given set
orizing and how this has been affecting the world of criteria that may be intuitive and self-evident to
around us. It also provides us with openings us, but read and evaluate theory papers for what
towards change and helps with finding ways of they are and aim to do – and only then marshal
making our theories and our scholarship more relevant criteria to judge the paper as well as sug-
equitable, diverse, decolonized, and pluriform gest areas for a paper’s development.
(among other ideals that are worth pursuing). Doing so is of course easier said than done.
In this way, papers in the emancipatory tradi- As organizational researchers, we have often
tion urge us to think differently and involve us, been trained and socialized into particular forms
as readers, in a normative thought experiment of theorizing and may indeed have developed
that has a direct bearing on our existing ways of our own preferences for particular contributions
doing things. They thus do their job well when along the way. But even so we can be aware of
they coherently expose and illuminate the root our own heuristics as well as engage openly
assumptions and limits of established ways of with a theoretical paper that we are reading or
thinking in theory and practice. These papers reviewing; that is, thinking through what the
may furthermore be judged on their ‘generative authors are trying to do, and evaluating and
capacity’ (Deetz, 1996) or ‘performative poten- appreciating the paper in those terms. This
tial’ (Cabantous, Gond, Harding, & Learmonth, would not only ensure a fair reading of any the-
2016) in how they motivate readers into action ory paper, but also that as reviewers and readers
and change their research practices. Obviously, we do not work from a position of assuming
this potential cannot be gauged on the basis of that theoretical contributions are limited to only
whether following the essay any specific actions one or a few forms of theorizing and through
have been realized (Cabantous et al., 2016), but our judgements inadvertently squeeze out other
by assessing whether the essay itself succeeds in forms.
having us ‘see’ (Deetz, 1996) the world differ-
ently – in other words, whether it has as a written
The Case for Pluralism
essay itself an ‘illocutionary force’ (Austin,
1962) and thus the strong potential to influence Different forms of theorizing come, as we hope
others into action. we have demonstrated, with different aims and
At this point, it is opportune to emphasize that knowledge interests. As such, these different
papers written in an emancipatory tradition need forms also come with distinct criteria for judg-
to be judged using different criteria (such as ing their contribution and ‘value’. We have
‘generative capacity’) than how we would judge, highlighted some of these differences in the
say, forms of explanatory theorizing. In fact, previous section. In so doing, one of our aims
expecting a parsimonious specification of under- has been to alert organizational researchers to
lying ‘mechanisms’ or the development of a pre- the importance of not conflating a set of criteria
cisely defined set of concepts or constructs, that apply to one form of theorizing with norms
which for many represents the pinnacle of theo- and values that apply to other forms. Such a
rizing (Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989), pluralistic ethos of appreciating different forms
would in this case not make much sense, as the of theorizing is not only important for individ-
main work that a critical essay does, and the con- ual researchers and for how we write, read, or
tribution it makes, is fundamentally different. review a specific paper. It is also an ideal that
What this means more generally is that as extends to the entire community of organization
organizational researchers we should be cognizant studies and its place as a discipline within the
Cornelissen et al. 15

broader social sciences. At this communal level, theorizing and in ways that limit its potential to
we suggest, our theoretical base will be enriched speak to and address problems in society.
when explanatory, interpretive, and emancipa- From our perspective, the field of organization
tory forms of theorizing all have their place; studies has a unique opportunity to further foster
when researchers exchange ideas using differ- and harness the value of ‘intellectual pluralism’
ent forms of theorizing; and when the theory (Ghoshal, 2005). As a field, it allows for diversity
and knowledge base around a particular subject – although we realize that such openness may
is not defined by a limited set of assumptions, often be limited to recognizing from the comfort
or by only one form of theorizing alone – as of one’s own position that other traditions also
effectively a form of ‘absolutism’ in ideology exist. Inclusiveness is a prerequisite for pluralism
and form (Ghoshal, 2005). ‘The only alterna- in theorizing. However, pluralism requires a fur-
tive to any [such] form of ideological absolut- ther step – that we, as researchers, also believe
ism lies in intellectual pluralism, which is likely that other traditions of theorizing have something
to lead both to better research and to broadened substantial to add and in distinct and critical ways
usefulness’ (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 88). help further our common knowledge base. With
Given that Ghoshal wrote down his views this additional step, we not only see the value of
more than fifteen years ago, it is worth asking other traditions, but also start to recognize how
whether we, as a community and field of schol- different forms of theorizing play distinct roles
arly inquiry, have embraced such intellectual plu- and complement each other in the pursuit of
ralism in our theorizing. And have we, in the knowledge. In this way, theoretical pluralism can
process, become collectively more reflexive be turned into a distinctive asset when it becomes
about our theorizing, the kind of knowledge that embraced as a field-specific value or ideal around
we produce, and the claims that we put forward which researchers work together and complement
and diffuse through our teaching and engagement each other in their efforts to create knowledge and
with stakeholders in society? It is perhaps hard to address problems for stakeholders in society.
provide a single and discrete answer to these When researchers embrace this ideal, they
questions. Some have indeed argued that organi- actively consider theoretical work steeped in a
zational theory has become increasingly stale and different tradition and engage in an open
banal (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Delbridge & exchange and conversation with one another.
Fiss, 2013), with current theories offering ideal- Looking beyond the confines of their own form
ized, mechanical pictures of organizations that do of theorizing, such an open conversation has
not match developments in society (Barley, 2016) researchers reaching out and going out of their
and that are based on a one-sided managerial way to read contributions in other forms and
view of productivity and efficiency (Petriglieri, then think through the consequences for the
2020). Others have been far less gloomy in their topic and for their own work (Cutcher et al.,
assessment; recognizing the diversity of theoreti- 2020). The result, we believe, will be a joining
cal traditions in the field (Meyer & Boxenbaum, up that is more than the sum of its parts; forms
2010) and the opening up of mainstream journals of critique will provoke thoughts and spur
to different forms of theorizing and theoretical news forms of theorizing, and explanatory and
contributions (Suddaby, 2014). There is also the interpretive forms of theorizing will together
recognition that the field is characterized by a create a more enriching and nuanced picture of
continuing debate about the knowledge that it our phenomena of interest. And when these
produces for itself and for society (Cutcher, forms are taken together, they provide us with
Hardy, Riach, & Thomas., 2020). Besides peren- a much sounder basis for educating our stu-
nial bouts of doubt about its relevance, the field dents and for engaging with stakeholders in
as a whole seems to harbour enough reflexivity society – bringing nuance and force to our
and debate so as to avoid researchers from en claims in ways that matter while ensuring that
masse becoming committed to a singular form of we do not overclaim.
16 Organization Theory 

We see Organization Theory as playing an Notes

important part in supporting and fostering such 1. We use the broader term of ‘concepts’ here
pluralism in forms of theorizing. As part of its as opposed to the more specific label of ‘con-
mission statement, the journal is open to ‘differ- structs’ (Suddaby, 2010). Concepts are abstract
ent forms and styles of theorizing’ and does not theoretical terms ’that specify the features,
privilege one form of contribution over the other attributes, or characteristics of the phenom-
(Cornelissen & Höllerer, 2020). As editors of enon in the real or phenomenological world that
the journal, we welcome different forms and they are meant to represent and that distinguish
contributions as outlined in this editorial, and them from other related phenomena’ (Podsakoff
et al., 2016, p. 3). Constructs are essentially
actively support authors through the review pro-
concepts (Podsakoff et al., 2016; Suddaby,
cess in developing their arguments and their 2010) and are thus included in this definition.
own voice in line with their chosen form and However, the term construct itself often also has
style of theorizing. This can be in the form of a a more particular meaning as involving defini-
scientific article, helping authors hone their tional work in support of the particular purpose
argument and develop the strongest and most of empirically measuring and testing concepts
impactful contribution, as well as in the form of (Bacharach, 1989; Osigweh, 1989; Suddaby,
a provocative essay, where we support authors 2010).
in developing their critique. By fostering such 2. The focus here is limited to process theoriz-
pluralism in forms of theorizing, we aim to ing within the explanatory tradition. Process
strengthen theory and theorizing in our field and theorizing may however also be more phenom-
enological or post-modern in orientation (see,
to support the continued vitality of organiza-
for instance, Beyes & Holt, 2020; Hernes &
tional research as it tackles important topics Schultz, 2020) in which case it is more likely to
within society. be developed and written up through one of the
interpretive or emancipatory forms of theoriz-
Acknowledgements ing that we will discuss in the text.
This essay has benefited a great deal from the excel-
lent suggestions made by our colleagues in the edito- References
rial team of Organization Theory (Eva Boxenbaum,
Penny Dick, Joel Gehman, and Juliane Reinecke) as Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of ‘theory’.
well as from comments by Daniel Hjorth, Renate Sociological Theory, 26, 173–199.
Meyer, and Paolo Quattrone from Organization Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating
Studies. research questions through problematization.
Academy of Management Review, 36, 247–271.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has man-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests agement studies lost its way? Ideas for more
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest imaginative and innovative research. Journal of
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub- Management Studies, 50, 128–152.
lication of this article. Arora-Jonsson, S., Brunsson, N., & Hasse, R. (2020).
Where does competition come from? The role
Funding of organization. Organization Theory, 1(1),
https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719889977.
The author(s) received no financial support for the
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
(2nd edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
article.
University Press.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories:
ORCID iDs Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
Markus A. Höllerer https://orcid.org/0000-0003- Management Review, 14, 496–515.
2509-2696 Banerjee, B., & Arjaliès, D.-L. (2021). Celebrating
David Seidl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0368- the end of enlightenment: Organization theory
196X in the age of the Anthropocene and Gaia (and
Cornelissen et al. 17

why neither is the solution to our ecological cri- Cutcher, L., Hardy, C., Riach, K., & Thomas,
sis). Organization Theory, forthcoming. R. (2020). Reflections on reflexive theoriz-
Barley, S. R. (2016). 60th Anniversary Essay: ing: The need for a little more conversa-
Ruminations on how we became a mystery tion. Organization Theory, 1(3), https://doi.
house and how we might get out. Administrative org/10.1177/2631787720944183.
Science Quarterly, 61, 1–8. D’Andrade, R. (1986). Three scientific world views
Barney, J. (2018). Editor’s comments: Positioning and the covering law. In D. W. Fiske & R. A.
a theory paper for publication. Academy of Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science:
Management Review, 43, 345–348. Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 19–41).
Benschop, Y. (2021). Grand challenges, feminist Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
answers. Organization Theory, 2(3), https://doi. Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches
org/10.1177/26317877211020323. to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and
Beyes, T., & Holt, R. (2020). The topographi- Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science,
cal imagination: Space and organization the- 7, 191–207.
ory. Organization Theory, 1(2), https://doi. Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors’ com-
org/10.1177/2631787720913880. ments: Styles of theorizing and the social organ-
Bromley, P., & Meyer, J.W. (2021). Hyper- ization of knowledge. Academy of Management
management: Neoliberal expansions of purpose Review, 38, 325–331.
and leadership. Organization Theory, 2(3), Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1985). Organizational
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020327. forms and investment decisions. Journal of
Cabantous, L., Gond, J. P., Harding, N., & Learmonth, Financial Economics, 14, 101–119.
M. (2016). Critical essay: Reconsidering critical Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling
performativity. Human Relations, 69, 197–213. grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action
Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2020). What makes a process revisited. Organization Studies, 36, 363–390.
theoretical contribution? Organization Theory, Fisher, G. (2020). The complexities of new venture
1(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720902473. legitimacy. Organization Theory, 1(2), https://
Cooren, F. (2020). Beyond entanglement: (Socio-) doi.org/10.1177/2631787720913881.
materiality and organization studies. Organization Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer,
Theory, 1(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877 T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. (2021). Capturing
20954444. causal complexity: Heuristics for configura-
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory tional theorizing. Academy of Management
about theory building: What constitutes a theo- Review, forthcoming.
retical contribution? Academy of Management Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. London:
Review, 36, 12–32. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Cornelissen, J.P. (2017a). Preserving theoretical Garfinkel, H. (1960). The rational properties of sci-
divergence in management research: Why the entific and common sense activities. Behavioral
explanatory potential of qualitative research Science, 5, 72–83.
should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Geertz, C. (2000). Thick description: Toward an
Journal of Management Studies, 54, 368–383. interpretive theory of culture. In Geertz, C.
Cornelissen, J. (2017b). Editor’s comments: Developing (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 581–
propositions, a process model, or a typology? 612). New York: Basic Books.
Addressing the challenges of writing theory Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories
without a boilerplate. Academy of Management are destroying good management prac-
Review, 42, 1–9. tices. Academy of Management Learning &
Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2014). Moving for- Education, 4, 75–91.
ward: Developing theoretical contributions in Glaser, V. L., Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2021).
management studies. Journal of Management The biography of an algorithm: Performing
Studies, 51, 995–1022. algorithmic technologies in organizations.
Cornelissen, J., & Höllerer, M. A. (2020). An open Organization Theory, 2(2), https://doi.
and inclusive space for theorizing: Introducing org/10.1177/26317877211004609.
organization theory. Organization Theory, 1(1), Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human inter-
https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719887980. ests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
18 Organization Theory 

Hamann, R., Luiz, J., Ramaboa, K., Khan, F., Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in
Dhlamini, X., & Nilsson, W. (2020). Neither organization science. Academy of Management
colony nor enclave: Calling for dialogical con- Review, 38, 70–89.
textualism in management and organization Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology. New
studies. Organization Theory, 1(1), https://doi. York: Free Press.
org/10.1177/2631787719879705. Meyer, R. E., & Boxenbaum, E. (2010). Exploring
Hernes, T., & Schultz, M. (2020). Translating the European-ness in organization research.
distant into the present: How actors address Organization Studies, 31, 737–755.
distant past and future events through situated Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2010). That’s relevant!
activity. Organization Theory, 1(1), https://doi. Different forms of practical relevance in manage-
org/10.1177/2631787719900999. ment science. Organization Studies, 31, 1257–
Höllerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., Barberio, V., & Meyer, 1285.
R. E. (2020). The interlinking theorization of Nyberg, D. (2021). Corporations, politics, and
management concepts: Cohesion and seman- democracy: Corporate political activities as
tic equivalence in management knowledge. political corruption. Organization Theory, 2(1),
Organization Studies, 41, 1284–1310. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720982618.
Janssens, M., & Zanoni, P. (2021). Making diversity Osigweh, C. A. B. (1989). Concept fallibility in
research matter for social change: New conversa- organizational science. Academy of Management
tions beyond the firm. Organization Theory, 2(2), Review, 14, 579–594.
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211004603. Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publica-
Ketokivi, M., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. (2017). tion: Novelty and convention in academic
Reasoning by analogy and the progress of theory. writing. Journal of Management Studies, 54,
Academy of Management Review, 42, 637–658. 747–759.
Kilduff, M. (2006). Editor’s comments: Publishing Pentland, B. T., Mahringer, C. A., Dittrich, K.,
theory. Academy of Management Review, 31, Feldman, M. S., & Wolf, J. R. (2020). Process
252–255. multiplicity and process dynamics: Weaving
Kornberger, M., & Mantere, S. (2020). Thought the space of possible paths. Organization
experiments and philosophy in organizational Theory, 1(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787
research. Organization Theory, 1(3), https://doi. 720963138.
org/10.1177/2631787720942524. Petriglieri, G. (2020). F** k science!? An invitation
Krause, M. (2016). The meanings of theorizing. to humanize organization theory. Organization
British Journal of Sociology, 67, 23–29. Theory, 1(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/263178
Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2017). Editors’ com- 7719897663.
ments: Sense and structure: The core build- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff,
ing blocks of an AMR article. Academy of N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating
Management Review, 42, 407–416. better concept definitions in the organizational,
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational
opportunities for contribution: Structuring Research Methods, 19, 159–203.
intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in Ragins, B. R. (2012). Editor’s comments: Reflections
organizational studies. Academy of Management on the craft of clear writing. Academy of
Journal, 40, 1023–1062. Management Review, 37, 493–501.
Lounsbury, M., & Wang, M. S. (2020). Into the Reed, I. A. (2011). Interpretation and social knowl-
clearing: Back to the future of constitutive insti- edge: On the use of theory in the human sciences.
tutional analysis. Organization Theory, 1(1), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719891173. Rindova, V. P. (2008). Editor’s comments: Publishing
Luker, K. (2008). Salsa dancing into the social sci- theory when you are new to the game. Academy
ences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University of Management Review, 33, 300–303.
Press. Roulet, T. J., & Pichler, R. (2020). Blame game theory:
Makadok, R., Burton, R., & Barney, J. (2018). A Scapegoating, whistleblowing and discursive
practical guide for making theory contributions struggles following accusations of organiza-
in strategic management. Strategic Management tional misconduct. Organization Theory, 1(4),
Journal, 39, 1530–1545. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720975192.
Cornelissen et al. 19

Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theoriz-
of theory: Clarifying theory through typifi- ing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
cation. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 385–390.
487–516. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2020). Sensemaking contribution? Academy of Management Review,
reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding 14, 490–495.
through phenomenology. Organization Theory, Winch, P. (1958). The idea of social science and its
1(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879937. relation to philosophy. New York: Humanities
Spicer, A. (2020). Playing the bullshit game: How Press.
empty and misleading communication takes Zald, M. N. (1991) Sociology as a discipline:
over organizations. Organization Theory, 1(2), Quasi-science and quasi-humanities. American
https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720929704. Sociologist, 22, 165–187.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Construct clarity in theories
of management and organization. Academy of
Author biographies
Management Review, 35, 346–357
Suddaby, R. (2014). Why theory? Academy of Joep Cornelissen is a Professor of Corporate
Management Review, 39, 407–411. Communication at Rotterdam School of Management
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory in the Netherlands and Chair in Strategy and
is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, Organization (part-time) at Liverpool University
371–384. Management School, United Kingdom. He is cur-
Swedberg, R. (2016). Before theory comes theoriz- rently the Editor-in-Chief of Organization Theory.
ing: Or how to make social science more inter- Markus Höllerer is Professor in Organization and
esting. British Journal of Sociology, 67, 5–22. Management at UNSW Business School, Sydney,
Thomas, G. (1997). What is the use of theory? Australia, as well as Senior Research Fellow in urban
Harvard Educational Review, 67, 75–104. management and governance at WU Vienna University
Tourish, D. (2020). The triumph of nonsense in of Economics and Business, Austria. He is currently
management studies. Academy of Management the Consulting Editor of Organization Theory.
Learning & Education, 19, 99–109.
Vergne, J. P. (2020). Decentralized vs. distributed organ- David Seidl is Professor in Organization and
ization: Blockchain, machine learning and the Management at the Department of Business
future of the digital platform. Organization Theory, Administration, University of Zurich. He is currently
1(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720977052. an Associate Editor of Organization Theory.