What kind of assumptions need to be realistic and how to test them: A response to Tsang (2006)

Abstract

Tsang (2006) contends that certain core assumptions of a theory, which are typically about people's behaviors or thoughts, need be realistic, because they determine the viability of the mechanism that generates a hypothesized relationship. While Tsang's (2006) article rightly emphasizes the importance of realistic assumptions, it neglects the issue that certain kinds of assumptions are necessarily unrealistic for the roles that they play in theory development and testing. Therefore, researchers should not be criticized for making unrealistic assumptions of the latter kinds. Furthermore, by deliberating on the assumptions underpinning a theory, researchers can construct theories with better explanatory power and further develop existing theories. Tsang (2006) also suggests two approaches for testing assumptions, namely, a structural model and direct inquiry approaches. Although these approaches have certain merits, they also have limitations that may render the evidence gathered unreliable under certain situations. Two alternative approaches, namely, the experimental‐causal‐chain and the moderator‐of‐process designs, address these limitations. The researcher could consider adopting these designs as well in order to improve the rigor of assumption testing. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Developing and Testing a Dynamic Theory of Motor Carrier Safety

“…A third limitation is that the nature of our secondary data precludes us from directly observing the processes we theorize bring about the relationships between constructs. This limitation is not unique to our article, but rather is pervasive in the supply chain and broader management literatures (Tsang ; Lam ). We sought to make explicit these processes because (1) Sutton and Staw () recommend that scholars provide detailed accounts of the mechanisms they expect bring about relationships, (2) explanatory depth is considered a desirable characteristic of scientific theories (Thagard ), and (3) theories with greater explanatory depth provide more directions for future research (Ylikoski and Kuorikoski ).…”

How symmetrical assumptions advance strategic management research

“…Successfully building new theory usually involves introducing new, different assumptions in existing theorizing, typically because adequately addressing a hitherto unexplained phenomenon makes this necessary. Hence, it is not surprising that discussion and controversy in strategic management often concern what are good/bad, useful/less useful, realistic/unrealistic, etc., assumptions (see Bromiley, ; Camerer, ; Lam, ; Poole and van de Ven, ; Shugan, ; Tsang, , ). And yet, there does not seem to be clearly articulated and agreed‐upon principles that can be used to examine the assumptions that strategic management researchers make.…”

“…Abstraction is obtained by the making of assumptions regarding explananda and explanantia (Musgrave, ; Mäki, , , ). Assumptions critically matter because they determine the closeness of a theory to reality, delimit its explanatory scope, and constrain its predictions and explanations (Lam, ; Mayer, ; Tsang, ). In fact, much critical discussion in strategic management has concerned assumptions.…”

A Core Broking Model for E-Markets

“…There are three different types of assumptions: negligibility, heuristic, and domain (Musgrave 1981). Negligibility and heuristic assumptions describe "simplifications and idealised cases of the real world respectively" (Lam 2010). The assumptions of the simple games in the beginning of chapter 2 relate to negligibility, while the presumptions of perfect competition in subsection 2.1.2 are heuristic.…”