Zhongyuan Sun

Reading lists Writing the paper W1Search all readings

Theory and theorizing

What counts as theory, how theoretical contributions are made, and the state of the field.

Of its 58 readings, 21 are assigned in two or more sources and listed first, with the number of sources beside each (in bold for the core readings, in 4 or more); the 37 listed in only one source are folded under each heading.

Drawn from: Fiss (USC); Clough (UBC); Maoret (IESE); Glaser (Alberta); Pollock (Tennessee); Wan (CUHK); Sullivan (HKUST); Lu, Li, Park, Yang & Yan (CityU); Amit (Wharton); Yiu (CUHK); Jia (USC); Cameron (Wharton); Marquis (HBS); Peng (UT Dallas); Zhou (HKU); Anteby (Boston University). Full details of the sources are on the reading lists page.

By decade

Before 1950: 0 readings<19501950s: 0 readings1950s1960s: 0 readings1960s1970s: 4 readings1970s1980s: 6 readings1980s1990s: 20 readings201990s2000s: 15 readings2000s2010s: 12 readings2010s2020s: 0 readings2020s
Most date from the 1990s; half were published in 1999 or later.

Core readings

In 4 or more sources.

  1. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.2307/23937888
  2. Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.01378
  3. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585924
  4. Weick, K. E. (1995). What Theory is Not, Theorizing Is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385. https://doi.org/10.2307/23937894
  5. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195114348.001.00014

Also assigned

In 2 to 3 sources.

  1. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585543
  2. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206399025003073
  3. Baum, J. A. C., & Rowley, T. J. (2002). Companion to Organizations: An Introduction. In The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 1–34). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164061.ch03
  4. Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (Eds.). (2005). Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199276813.001.00013
  5. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building Theory about Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.04863
  6. Davis, M. S. (1971). That's Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393171001002112
  7. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1982). Should sociologists forget their mothers and fathers? The American Sociologist.2
  8. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on "What Theory is Not". Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391. https://doi.org/10.2307/23937902
  9. Van Maanen, J. (1995). Style as Theory. Organization Science.2
  10. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.00012
  11. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 1–31). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511663901.0012
  12. Scott, W. R. (2004). Reflections on a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.1106442
  13. Augier, M., March, J. G., & Sullivan, B. N. (2005). Notes on the Evolution of a Research Community: Organization Studies in Anglophone North America, 1945–2000. Organization Science, 16(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.01082
  14. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice-Hall.2
  15. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ —Part 3: Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873–879. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.40002
  16. Davis, G. F. (2015). Editorial Essay: What Is Organizational Research For? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392155857252

Further readings

37 more, listed in one source
  1. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
  2. Schelling, T. S. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior.
  3. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Heinemann.
  4. Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three Models of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.2307/258215
  5. Turner, J. H. (1986). The Structure of Sociological Theory.
  6. Alexander, J. C. (1987). What Is Theory? In Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory Since World War II (pp. 1–21). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/alex94474-002
  7. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516. https://doi.org/10.2307/258556
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620. https://doi.org/10.2307/258921
  9. Dyer, W. G., join(' ', & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, to Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613. https://doi.org/10.2307/258920
  10. Ragin, C. C. (1992). Introduction: Cases of 'What Is a Case?'. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Pine Forge Press.
  12. Cannella, A. A., join(' ', & Paetzold, R. L. (1994). Pfeffer's Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 331. https://doi.org/10.2307/258708
  13. Stern, R. N., & Barley, S. R. (1996). Organizations and Social Systems: Organization Theory's Neglected Mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393989
  14. Scott, W. R. (1996). The Mandate is Still Being Honored: In Defense of Weber's Disciples. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393990
  15. March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Crossroads—Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable. Organization Science, 8(6), 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.6.698
  16. Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Vintage.
  17. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science. Macmillan.
  18. Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for Scholarly Publication. Sage Publications.
  19. Fligstein, N. (2001). Organizations: Theoretical Debates and the Scope of Organizational Theory. In Calhoun, C., Rojek, C., Turner, & B. (Eds.), International Handbook of Sociology. Sage Press.
  20. Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (2002). ASQ Forum: Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory? Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094844
  21. Rynes, S. (2002). Editor Comments: Some reflections on contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 311–313.
  22. Shenhav, Y. (2003). The Historical and Epistemological Foundations of Organization Theory: Fusing Sociological Theory with Engineering Discourse. In Tsoukas, H., Mavros, G. D., Knudsen, & C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory (pp. 183–209). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199275250.003.0007
  23. Bergh, D. D. (2003). Thinking Strategically about Contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 135–136. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2003.17481820
  24. Meyer, A. D., Gaba, V., & Colwell, K. A. (2005). Organizing Far from Equilibrium: Nonlinear Change in Organizational Fields. Organization Science, 16(5), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0135
  25. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2006). The subject is organizations, the verb is organizing. In Organizations and organizing: rational, natural, and open systems perspectives (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
  26. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What Makes Management Research Interesting, And Why Does It Matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785494
  27. Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511806421
  28. Zuckerman, E. W. (2010). Speaking with one voice: a “Stanford school” approach to organizational Hierarchy. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations (pp. 289–307). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x(2010)0000028020
  29. Thompson, M. (2011). Ontological Shift or Ontological Drift? Reality Claims, Epistemological Frameworks, and Theory Generation in Organization Studies. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 754–773. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.65554745
  30. Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2011). Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330875
  31. Suddaby, R. (2014). Editor's Comments: Why Theory? Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0252
  32. Lounsbury, M., & Beckman, C. M. (2015). Celebrating Organization Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12091
  33. Davis, G. F. (2015). Celebrating Organization Theory: The After‐Party. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12094
  34. Tellis, G. J. (2017). Interesting and impactful research: on phenomena, theory, and writing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0499-0
  35. Davis, G. F. (2017). Organization Theory and the Dilemmas of a Post-Corporate Economy. In How Institutions Matter! (pp. 311–322). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x201600048b011
  36. Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory Building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
  37. Heugens, P. M. A. R. (n.d.). Organization theory: Bright prospects for a permanently failing field. Inaugural Addresses Research in Management Series, RSM, Rotterdam.