This editorial, published in the Academy of Management Journal in 2018, authored by Jason D. Shaw, Subrahmaniam Tangirala, Balagopal Vissa, and Jessica B. Rodell, delves into the pivotal concept of cross-disciplinary theory integration within management research. Aligning with the journal’s “New Ways of Seeing” theme, the authors present theory integration not merely as a scholarly pursuit but as a “romantic one” where a management scholar seeks to resolve pressing theoretical issues or perplexing phenomenon-based problems by combining management explanations with views from outside disciplines. This approach is seen as a popular and impactful way to contribute to the literature, with Zahra and Newey (2009) noting its potential for “multilayered impact—for development of the theory, field, stakeholder, discipline, and even for the researcher”. The history of cross-disciplinary integration in management is nearly as long as the field itself, with early researchers often seeking legitimacy and a scientific foundation by drawing on and combining base-discipline theories.
The editorial systematically examines a range of motivations for undertaking cross-disciplinary integrations, all of which coalesce around the fundamental desire of researchers to develop knowledge. These motivations are categorized into three broad areas:
- Solving Puzzles in the Management Literature: Researchers may turn to outside disciplines when existing management theory proves inadequate to explain new phenomena, observations, or occurrences. For instance, Plowman et al. (2007) explored how a small decision could lead to radical change in a church, finding that their discipline’s “existing theories of change do not fully explain” such events, and subsequently turned to complexity theory, rooted in physical and biological sciences, to provide an explanation.
- Explaining Recurring Patterns or “Stylized Facts”: When emergent patterns, empirical trends, or consistently observed anomalies are not adequately captured by management theory, scholars may seek perspectives from other disciplines. Maltarich et al. (2017) illustrate this by integrating economic and psychological theory to explain why pay-for-performance outcomes were sometimes less positive than expected, thereby better delineating how and why such systems function.
- Offering New Ways of Seeing an Existing Issue or Phenomenon: Integration can also provide entirely fresh perspectives on established issues. Albert and Bell (2002), for example, applied music theory (e.g., tonality, rhythm, musical shape, and harmony) to gain novel insights into the timing of actions in organizations, shifting the conventional understanding of business actions by conceptualizing them as an “unfolding musical performance”. Other examples include Mayer (2006) integrating transaction cost theory and the knowledge-based view, and Vissa (2011) combining the theory of planned behavior with network theory.
To guide researchers toward successful integration, the editorial outlines three “best practices”:
- Disciplined Integration: This principle emphasizes that insights spanning disciplines “should be disciplined”. Researchers must explicitly articulate both the differences and congruences in assumptions between the theories or disciplines being integrated. By unpacking underlying assumptions and resolving conflicting explanations, scholars can derive new insights and solutions that may have previously eluded the field.
- Integration at Theoretical Intersections: Recognizing that disciplines often have non-overlapping domains, cross-disciplinary theorizing becomes particularly crucial “at places where those domains intersect”. This frequently involves cross-level theorizing, such as examining how institutional changes impact individual employee attitudes or behavior, to “finish conversations started by one field at one level of analysis” and provide a more complete theoretical picture.
- Reciprocal Integration: When feasible, scholars should aim for a “true or reciprocal integration” where management research not only borrows from other disciplines but also contributes back to them. This ensures that management journals offer “unique insights that are not already available in those disciplines,” driving theoretical innovation within the borrowed-from fields. While acknowledging that reciprocal integration might not always be possible (as in the music theory example where music theorists are unlikely to draw from management literature in return), the general point is to “pay back the debt” to those disciplines.
Furthermore, the authors highlight crucial cautionary points or “danger zones” that researchers must navigate:
- Compatibility: This refers to ensuring that the theories integrated have “compatible assumptions involving epistemology, human nature, and level of analysis”. Integrating theories with fundamentally incompatible epistemological bases (e.g., positivist vs. constructionist) or irreconcilable assumptions about human nature (e.g., opportunism vs. role-scripted behavior) can pose “a sizeable, if not unsurmountable challenge”. While cross-level integration can be useful, researchers must ensure that key assumptions of the theories are not violated.
- Communication Clarity: As a “still-maturing field” with a weaker paradigm compared to disciplines like political science, economics, and psychology, management faces challenges in communication clarity. This includes the existence of “many conceptual definitions for identical construct labels” (known as ‘jingle’) and “two labels referring to the same phenomena” (known as ‘jangle’). Therefore, researchers must “carefully trace conceptual definitions before any attempt to integrate the underlying overarching theories containing them”.
In conclusion, Shaw et al. (2018) assert that cross-disciplinary theory integration is a potent method for making “significant, novel, and bold theoretical contribution”. They encourage researchers to adopt the outlined best practices, remain mindful of potential pitfalls, and study exemplary contributions in existing literature to uncover “New Ways of Seeing” and advance the field.
APA Reference: Shaw, J. D., Tangirala, S., Vissa, B., & Rodell, J. B. (2018). New ways of seeing: Theory integration across disciplines. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4001