Content area
Full Text
ESSAYS
Troubled by what appears to be a tendency in strategy research toward prescription, informed by a monist and inevitably reductionist but rarely questioned dogma-the belief that there is a single harmony of truths into which everything, if genuine, must fit-the author proposes that future research is best served not by the extant theoretical heterogeneity or by a dominant paradigm but by being grounded in theories of heterogeneity. Using a typical peer review as a point of departure, the author proceeds to articulate this trend, disentangle its deep-seated assumptions, and consider its consequences for progress in our discipline.
Sipping my coffee strong, as is the French tradition, I peruse the critical evaluation of a conscientious reviewer known to me only as "198." Another peer review. Yet an increasingly familiar response. What I find troubling is the intent that has come to characterize our approach to and our evaluation of studies in strategy: an interest in prediction and prescription validated by rarely questioned but far-reaching ontological and epistemological assumptions. For starters, let's attend to Reviewer 198:
I found your paper fascinating [ ... thank you]. And I concurred with your central thesis that real phenomena are much more complex and certainly interactive relative to the usual mode in which theories and models explain phenomena. Your arguments are sure to raise discussion [... hopefully, yes].... Theory cannot be solely descriptive as your paper appears to argue [ ... and why not? Some of our most robust theories are]. Ultimately it must have usefulness for purpose [ ... you think description to be of no use as regards purpose?]. True, we are academicians with the monastic tradition of our origins [ ... yes, celibacy set aside]. We are, especially in our research activities, the set-aside reflective portions of our society. We are afforded time for our reflective role only because our wealthy society can afford to give us that luxury. But ultimately we do not "do" our art just for art's sake-especially within the applied discipline of business administration. Thus, description cannot be solely descriptive. It must have an element of predictiveness [ ... there is a difference between having prediction as a corollary to good description and making it the raison d'etre of our...