Explaining Successful Theory Development
Open Access DepositedA Comparative Analysis of Ways of Theorizing in Management Research
Why do some theory-building papers achieve high scholarly impact while others do not? This dissertation examines which ways of theorizing, the characteristic patterns through which scholars construct and justify theoretical explanations, are more impactful, and how these practices combine with contextual conditions to create configurations sufficient to generate greater scholarly impact. I analyzed 308 editorials and 900 highly cited articles published between 2010 and 2024 in six premier management journals using a multimethod design that integrated large language model-assisted natural language processing, topic modeling, and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). First, editorials were analyzed to identify institutionalized ways of theorizing that editors promote as indicators of high-quality theory. Then, highly cited research articles were analyzed to examine how these ways of theorizing, together with contextual conditions, characterize the field’s most impactful research. The analysis identified multiple equifinal configurations sufficient for high impact, operationalized via citation performance. Contrary to what editorial prescription implies, observable ways of theorizing are largely absent from sufficient configurations. Instead, contextual conditions, including field and journal alignment, highly influential authors, collective authorship, and topical bursts, consistently anchor the pathways to scholarly impact.
- All rights reserved
Notice to Authors
If you are the author of this work and you have any questions about the information on this page, please use the Contact form to get in touch with us.