DiMaggio, P. J. (1995).

Comments on" What theory

is not". Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 391-397.
Sarath Pendyala`
 Introduction

• S&S show the dodges authors use as substitutes for theory

• The problem lies in a combination of education and talent
• This author suggests three issues that make this problem even more
complicated
 There is More than One Kind of Good Theory

Three views of what theory should be:

• Theory as covering laws: generalizations that, taken together, describe the world
as we see it
• Theory as enlightenment: a set of categories and domain assumptions aimed at
clearing away conventional notions to make room for artful and exciting insights
• Theory as narrative: theory as an account of a social process, with emphasis on
empirical tests of the plausibility of the narrative as well as careful attention to the
scope conditions of the account
 Good Theory Splits the Difference

Many of the best theories are hybrids, combining the best qualities of
covering-law, enlightenment, and process approaches; should possess balance
between these conflicting issues
• Clarity vs. defamiliarization
• Focus vs. multidimensionality
• Comprehensiveness vs. memorability
 Theory Construction is a Social Construction,
Often After the Fact

A theory's fate will be determined in part by factors outside one's control

• The value of resonance
• Theories into Slogans
• Post hoc theory construction
 Conclusion

• Good theory is so difficult to produce routinely, in part, because "goodness"

is multidimensional
• The best theory often combines approaches to theorizing, and the act of
combination requires compromise between competing and mutually
incompatible values
• Theory construction is a cooperative venture between author and readers –
in the short run, theories turn into slogans and in the long run, they can turn
into canonical masterpieces