The document outlines themes from a PhD workshop focusing on building theoretical contributions in research. It discusses the characteristics of good research papers, the importance of theoretical contributions, and methods to communicate these effectively. Various insights and examples are provided to illustrate how to craft impactful contributions while considering the relevance and interest within the academic field.

1. Ferran Giones
2018
SDU - MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Building
contributions
What do we know? what can we do?
PhD Workshop – June 2018

2. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Agenda
• Warm-up
• Identification of “good” papers.
• What makes them good?
• Focus on the ”contribution”
• What do we know about building contributions (theoretical
contributions)?
• How do we communicate the contribution?
• What can I do next?
11 May 2017
2

3. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Warm-up
• Mapping the different topics / research fields in the room.
• Take 5 min to:
• Remember / find a paper that you particularly like.
• What makes the paper special? What makes it standout?
• What was the impact of the paper for your research?
• Quick round
• My example:
• Priem, R. L., Li, S. and Carr, J. C. (2011) ‘Insights and New Directions from Demand-Side Approaches to Technology
Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategic Management Research’, Journal of Management, 38(1), pp. 346–374. doi:
10.1177/0149206311429614.
11 May 2017
3

4. What is particularly good
with this paper?
Content developed by Gry Alsos (Nord University Business School, Bodø, Norway)

5. A good research paper
Interesting
Relevance
Novelty
Importance
Rigorous
Sound method – can we
trust the results?
Cumulative – building on
prior knowledge
Contribution
Theoretical
Methodological
Practical/policy
Presentation
Storytelling
Language
Consistency
ProcessContent
Readability
Added
value
Content developed by Gry Alsos (Nord University Business School, Bodø, Norway)

6. Aspects that make management studies ‘interesting’.
Source: Frank & Landström 2016
Study sample Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland (2006)
67 members of the Academy of
Management Journal (AM J) editorial board
Das and Long (2010)
131 members of the Administrative Science
Association of Canada (ASAC)
Features that make a
study interesting
1. Counterintuitive, i.e. challenging established
knowledge, and going against conventional wisdom
2. Quality – well-crafted theory, methods, and good
fit of data and theory
3. Good writing, e.g. well-crafted, clear and
engaging with rich descriptions
4. Creating new theories/findings: synthesizes
previous theories, integrates multiple perspectives,
etc.
5. Usable practical implications that generate usable
knowledge that is relevant in the real world
1. Innovative method design, e.g. employing a novel
research methodology or an exemplary application of an
existing methodology
2. Generalizability and data analysis – research methods
that employ objective and sophisticated data analysis to
interpret data collected from valid generalizable samples
3. Novelty, e.g. focus on unveiling embedded
assumptions, creating counter-intuitive ideas
4. Relevance – the findings should make sense and have
practical relevance
5. Communication, i.e. good communication to readers
(logical arguments and readers involvement)
Additional findings The study by Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland (2006)
indicates that interesting features differ in various
parts of the world, i.e. they are context-dependent
Das and Long (2010) argue that the scholarly background
influences which features are considered interesting
Content developed by Gry Alsos (Nord University Business School, Bodø, Norway)

7. Interestingness dimensions of entrepreneurship scholars
Source: Frank & Landström 2016
Junior Scholars Senior Scholars
Focus on individual interestingness
Interesting entrepreneurship research is subjective
• Creating a balance between intrinsic interests and
institutional expectations
Interesting entrepreneurship research is relevant
• Different audiences and a need to overcome the theory practice
division
Interesting entrepreneurship research is novel
• Works that (1) define the core of the field, (2) generate new
perspectives and surprising findings, (3) synthesize a research area
and (4) use theories and methodologies from other fields
Interesting entrepreneurship research evokes emotional responses
• Presentation and writing style that provoke the audience
Focus on the interestingness of the field
Interesting entrepreneurship research requires new routings
• The institutionalization of entrepreneurship research, reinforced
by the academic incentive system, makes the research gap-driven
and less related to real world issues
Interesting entrepreneurship research is relevant
• The field is rooted in practice and policy, thus there is a need for
a stronger focus on relevance and the integration of theory and
practice
Interesting entrepreneurship research is novel, challenging, and
important
• Entrepreneurship research needs to be (1) connected to context,
(2) connected to mainstream disciplines, and (3) based on
methodologies that capture the essence of entrepreneurship
• Contemporary entrepreneurship research needs to be challenged
and focused on important issues in society
Content developed by Gry Alsos (Nord University Business School, Bodø, Norway)

8. What makes a paper interesting ? (Barley 2006)
Difference is the root of all interest!
Subject matters – subjects that differs from the mainstream
Methods – different approaches to study a subject
• Give new perspectives
Theory – propose different (new) theories or perspectives
But
Limits to how different it can be
Content developed by Gry Alsos (Nord University Business School, Bodø, Norway)

9. So what is a theoretical
contribution?
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

10. A Simple Definition of Theory:
A theory is a set of assumptions and the causal logic
that explains the relationships among constructs (not
variables).
EO New Venture
Growth
Survey Scale
Annual Change
Sales
Constructs:
Variables:
Theory
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

11. Components of a theory
12
Variables VariablesHypotheses
Constructs ConstructsPropositions
Boundary = Assumptions about
values, time, and space
Generalizability
Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

12. What theory is not…
• References
• Data
• Lists of variables and constructs
• Diagrams
• Hypotheses
13
Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

13. Example for the use of building blocks of theory:
How does hierarchical distance bias idea evaluation in firms?
• Biases are rooted in cognition, role, social categorization, or subunit favoritism (Moreau et al. 2001; Elsbach &
Kramer, 2003; Reitzig & Sorenson, 2013; Boudreau et al., 2016; Berg, 2016; Reitzig, 2011)
• Similarity between actors has been shown to affect idea valuation (Piezunka & Dahlander, 2015; Greenberg & Mollick,
2017)
• Hierarchical similarity has not been considered as a source for bias in idea evaluation
• New concept in management literature (Doyle et al., 2016)
• Ubiquitous element of organizational design
Research question(s):
• Does hierarchical distance bias idea evaluation in organizations?
• How does idea novelty affect this bias?
14
Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

14. Example for the use of building blocks of theory:
How does hierarchical distance bias idea evaluation in firms?
15
Homophily
(e.g. McPherson et al.,
2001)
Expectation states &
social status
(e.g. Kim & King, 2014)
Rivalry/
competition
(e.g. Kilduff et al., 2010)
Mechanism - Similarity between
individuals leads to
increased social
interaction,
communication, and
understanding
- Similarity between idea
evaluator and idea creator
will lead to higher shared
cognition and higher trust
- Individuals with high
status are expected to
have more experience
and more knowledge
- Evaluators expect
higher/lower performance
of individuals higher/lower
in hierarchy
- Evaluators consider their
career concerns in
evaluating ideas
- Investment means to
allocate resources to a
potential competitor
- Individuals who are close,
especially below and at
the same level, are
evaluated more critically
Predicted relationship
between hierarchical
distance and evaluation
(-) downward
(-) upward
(-) downward
(+) upward
(+) downward
(+) upward
Illustration
d – hierarchical distance
e – evaluation
0
e
0
e
0
e
d d d
Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

15. What is a Theoretical Contribution?
A supported insight that challenges or extends
a theory (i.e., assumptions or causal logic
linking constructs), or new (or adapted) theory
to explain a phenomenon that has not yet been
explained.
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

16. The Structure of Theoretical
Contributions
Theoretical contributions involve either: (1) adding and explaining new
boxes and arrows to existing models or (2) offering new or extended
explanations, or (3) challenging existing logic or assumptions connecting
boxes.
Existing
Theory: Firms
with EO
New: Using
these processes
Existing
Theory: Grow
faster
New: Only or
more strongly
under these
conditions
New: Created by
these antecedents
New explanation
or extended
explanation
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

17. What is a theoretical contribution?
• Contributing to by altering whats and hows
 Addition or deletion of factors is often not enough
 List of variables does not constitute theory
 How does the addition or deletion alter the how?
• Contributing by altering whys
 Altering the explanations for existing relationships
 Borrowing perspectives from other fields
 Integrating different perspectives
• Contribution by alterings whos, whens, and wheres
 Pointing out limitations in current conceptions is not enough
 Testing theories in new contexts
 Showing it does not work but should work – no contribution
 Showing it does work but should not work – contribution
 Qualitative changes in boundaries instead of quantitative changes
20
Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

18. Making a conceptual contribution:
Perspectives from an AMR associate
editor
Sherry M.B. Thatcher, University of South Carolina
IE Business School
Madrid, Spain
September 28, 2015

19. But so what…if your idea is
not good
AMR Mission Statement: The Four Paths to Making a
Theoretical Contribution
• Developing new theory
• E.g., pointing out and carefully delineating a novel type of problem
• Significantly challenging existing theory
• Synthesizing recent advances and ideas into fresh, if not
entirely new theory
• Crafting ways to improve the process of theory
development
Content developed by Sherry M.B. Thatcher, University of South Carolina – AMR Workshop 2015v

20. Developing new theory
• Developing new theory
• E.g., pointing out and carefully delineating a novel type of problem
• Sluss, D.M. & Ashforth, B.E. 2007. Relational identity and
identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships
Content developed by Sherry M.B. Thatcher, University of South Carolina – AMR Workshop 2015

21. Challenging existing theory
• Significantly challenging existing theory
• E.g., pointing out boundary conditions that might limit a theory’s
generalizability
• Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N.P. & Berg, J.M. 2013. When
worlds collide in cyberspace: How boundary work in online
social networks impacts professional relationships
Content developed by Sherry M.B. Thatcher, University of South Carolina – AMR Workshop 2015

22. Synthesizing ideas into
fresh theory
• Synthesizing recent advances and ideas into fresh, if not
entirely new theory
• E.g., integrating two or more theoretical perspectives that
provide a new way of looking at a problem
• Weingart, L.R., Behfar, K.J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., &
Jehn, K.A. 2015. The directness and oppositional intensity of
conflict expression.
Content developed by Sherry M.B. Thatcher, University of South Carolina – AMR Workshop 2015

23. Improve the process of
theory development
• Crafting ways to improve the process of theory
development
• E.g., provide us with a new way of thinking about a topic (multi-
level issues, feedback loops)
• Harrison, D.A. & Klein, K.J. 2007. What’s the difference?
Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in
organizations
Content developed by Sherry M.B. Thatcher, University of South Carolina – AMR Workshop 2015

26. Are there different types of
theoretical contributions?

27. Possible theoretic contributions
30 Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

28. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Corley, K. and Gioia, D. (2011) ‘Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical
contribution?’, Academy of Management Review, 36(1), pp. 12–32. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0486.
11 May 2017
31
Organization and management science has,
therefore, come up short in fulfilling the charge of
being on the leading edge of management thinking.
Indeed, most of the new ideas in management that
have been put into practice have come from the
world of practice, rather than from academia (cf.
Barley, Meyer, & Gash, 1988). Consequently,
society has granted us respect, but not much
influence (see Mintzberg, 2004, and Pfeffer, 1993).
We believe our field has matured to a point that the
time has come to begin rectifying that shortcoming

29. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
MacInnis, D. J. (2011) ‘A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing,
75(4), pp. 136–154. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.
11 May 2017
32

30. How will you know it when you
see it?
•Look for:
• Clear deviations from what:
• Current theory predicts
• Prior empirical research shows
• Clear statements about what is not known
• Clear statements of the actual insight, challenged
assumption, or new theory
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

31. Don’t be distracted by:
•What hasn’t been studied
•What the study does
•Empirical contribution
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

32. Where to find a Theoretical
Contribution?
Introduction
• Clear statement of what is known
• Clear statement about what is not known
• Clear statement about what is added
• Clear statement about why its important
Propositions/Model/Hypotheses: If you abstracted them from
everything else, are they novel or just what you would have
predicted based on current theory?
Content developed by Jim Combs (Alabama University, US) for the ET&P Review Workshop - 2015

33. Your contribution
Please state your own or expected theoretical contribution.
What kind of contribution is it?
Content developed by Tim Schweisfurth (SDU / TUM)

34. How do I write my
theoretical contribution?

35. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Patriotta, G. (2017) ‘Crafting Papers for Publication: Novelty and Convention in Academic Writing’, Journal
of Management Studies, 54(5), pp. 747–759. doi: 10.1111/joms.12280.
11 May 2017
45

36. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Locke, K. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1997) ‘Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and
“Problematizing” in organizational studies’, Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), pp. 1023–1062. doi: 10.2307/256926.
11 May 2017
46
Between January 1976 and September 1996, 21
articles whose data and analyses were wholly
qualitative were published in the Academy of
Management Journal. We took January 1976 as our
starting point because the Academy of Management
Review was created as a separate journal in 1976,
following a 1975 decision by AMJ's editorial board to
publish only empirical work in the Academy of
Management Journal. During the same two decades,
61 such qualitative works were published in
Administrative Science Quarterly.
These 82 case studies constitute our sample, and they
reflect much of the variety in epistemological
orientations and methodological approaches that fall
under the compendious rubric of qualitative methods.

49. Similar challenges across
research fields

50. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Rindova, V. (2011) ‘Moving from ideas to a theoretical contribution: Comments on the process of
developing theory in organizational research’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(2), pp. 19–21.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03221.x.
11 May 2017
61
In order to develop an original insight into a
motivated research question, authors need to
simultaneously problematize a given area of
research and recognize the accomplishments they
build on.
In order to move from an insight to theory, they
need to decompose the insight into concepts and
relationships among them, and to integrate those
into an elaborated ‘‘whole.’’ To be able to
simultaneously claim originality and usefulness,
authors need to articulate how what they offer
builds on what is already there.

51. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Crane, A. et al. (2016) ‘What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution in the Business and Society Field?’,
Business and Society, 55(6), pp. 783–791. doi: 10.1177/0007650316651343.
11 May 2017
62
To do that, good theory therefore also
needs to be translatable to relevant
audiences. So prospective authors should
consider how they are communicating their
theoretical contribution, and whether, for
example, it is possible to create figures,
tables, and other exhibits that help
summarize their contribution in a readily
digestible way.
In the words of Kurt Lewin (1951), “there is
nothing quite so practical as a good
theory.” However,

52. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Ågerfalk, P. J. (2014) ‘Insufficient theoretical contribution: a conclusive rationale for rejection?’, European
Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), pp. 593–599. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.35.
11 May 2017
63
Authors: If your paper is making a truly significant
empirical contribution, emphasize that contribution
rather than bolstering and over-selling a possibly
contested theoretical contribution. Be careful not to
confuse empirical contribution with implications for
practice.
However, make sure that you explore the theoretical
implications of your findings. In doing so, refrain from
drawing far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions, as it
is likely they will only suggest a limited applicability for
future theory development based on your work.
You do not have to begin the paper with a literature
review section. Situating the empirical contribution in
the relevant scholarly discourse may be more effective
towards the end of the paper.

53. So, do we have a theory
about theory building?

54. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Makadok, R., Burton, R. & Barney, J., 2018. A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), pp.1530–1545.
11 May 2017
65

55. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Shepherd, D. A. and Suddaby, R. (2017) ‘Theory Building: A Review and Integration’, Journal of
Management, 43(1), pp. 59–86. doi: 10.1177/0149206316647102.
11 May 2017
66

56. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Okhuysen, G. and Bonardi, J.-P. (2011) ‘EDITORS’ COMMENTS: THE CHALLENGES OF BUILDING
THEORY BY COMBINING LENSES’, Academy of Management Review, 36(1), pp. 6–11.
11 May 2017
67
It is appropriate to explicitly note that proximity
between the phenomena explained and compatibility
in underlying assumptions are not requirements
for the successful combination of
theoretical lenses. Instead, these two dimensions
define four different types of manuscripts,
each of which presents particular types of challenges
for authors in their development and
generation of new theory

57. MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Byron, K. and Thatcher, S. M. B. (2015) ‘“What I Know Now That I Wish I Knew Then”: Teaching Theory
and Theory-Building’, Academy of Management Review, 41(1), pp. 1–8. doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0094.
11 May 2017
68
The exercises are
(1) writing a paragraph explaining the basic idea
and why it is important;
(2) creating a visual representation, where
relevant, of what the model looks like (e.g., a
flowchart, a process model, a 2 x 2 matrix);
(3) explaining the idea verbally;
(4) creating an annotated bibliography of
approximately fifty articles that explains how
each article relates to your idea;
(5) Developing a set of propositions; and
(6) writing a “barebones” draft of the paper that
outlines the basic logic of your model. Engaging in
these activities multiple times is a prerequisite for
developing a clear argument.

58. Ferran Giones
2018
SDU - MADS CLAUSEN INSTITUTE
Building
contributions
What do we know? what can we do?
PhD Workshop – June 2018