Using accumulated knowledge to calibrate theoretical propositions

Abstract

In organizational psychology research, most theories put forth directional predictions, such as stating that an increase in one construct will result in an increase or decrease in another construct. Such predictions are imprecise, given that they can be confirmed by a wide range of values, and theories that rely on such predictions bear little risk of falsification. In this article, we present an approach for increasing theoretical precision by using results from meta-analyses to calibrate the predictions embedded in a theory. Our approach provides point values for theoretical predictions along with credibility intervals that capture the likely range of the predicted effects. We illustrate this approach by drawing from research on work engagement and calibrate the predictions represented by two conceptual models. Contributions and limitations of the proposed approach are discussed.

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

“…In terms of predictions as such, it was already mentioned in organizational literature that hardly we can require from our theories something bigger and deeper that the specification of directional predictions when “an increase in one construct will result in an increase or decrease in another construct” (Edwards and Christian, 2014, p. 379). Moreover, even in mature sciences, researchers acknowledge that science actually operates by stating what is more likely to occur and what less:It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.…”

“…Meyer and Rowan explain why organizations experience institutional influences, DiMaggio and Powell (together with Tolbert and Zucker, 1983) describe how this occurs and, in addition, Oliver (1991, 1992) specifies the scope of the theory and demonstrate those areas and limits where conditions exists for weakening institutional effects. As a typical organizational theory which puts forward directional predictions (Edwards and Berry, 2010; Edwards and Christian, 2014, p. 279), institutional theory explains and predicts the tendency for organizations to become more similar to each other over time and express less strategic and interest-driven behavior, conforming to ever-increasing institutional pressures (Galaskiewicz and Wasserman, 1989; Slack and Hinings, 1994; Granlund and Lukka, 1998; Deephouse, 1996; Dacin, 1997). It predicts homogeneity over variation and conformity over agentic behavior.…”

“…Among the central claims of the philosophy of science and scientific inquiry, there is a requirement that well-developed scientific theories would be able to predict and explain facts about phenomena (Bogen and Woodward, 1988, p. 306; Feynman, 1955; Carnap, 1966; Popper, 1959; Hempel, 1965, 1988) and only those theories can be accepted which fit these requirements (Freund, 1950). Predictions in soft sciences and in organizational research in particular, are expressed “as directional statements, such as a positive or negative relationship between two variables” (Edwards and Berry, 2010, p. 669; Edwards and Christian, 2014). Due to the highly abstracted nature of organizational theories and paradigm proliferation, organizational theories do not compete head to head and can't be tested against each other so the field of organization studies does not progress in a traditional sense, common to exact sciences (Davis and Marquis, 2005; Davis, 2010; Little, 1993; Casciaro and Piskorski, 2005; Aksom et al , 2020).…”

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

“…Theories in our field are very imprecise, even by the standards of management (Edwards & Berry, 2010). We have to do better by being more exact in our predictions, which can help in testing for specific effects (Edwards & Christian, 2014); in this way, we can test stronger theory by using prior information, which is possible within the classical hypothesis testing framework (e.g., by constraining parameter, comparing nested models, or testing parameters against specific values via Wald tests). Precision and formalization of theory has many benefits for later research (Adner, et al, 2009).…”

Praise from a self-enhancement perspective: More, I want more?

“…The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy" (Bernoulli, 1994). The self-enhancement literature seems to have attained a mature stage, allowing it to make more specific predictions (Edwards & Christian, 2014) and refined recommendations about the exact inflection points at which positive selfenhancement effects may turn into maladjusted cognition and behaviors that ultimately hurt one's sense of life satisfaction and mental health.…”