Essay Instructions: 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.
================================================================
4 pages ??" double spaced
1. First, explain why originality, utility, and theoretical prescience are primary theoretical constructs in the Corley and Gioia (2011) article.
2. Second, assess the relative clarity of those three theoretical constructs by analyzing them in relation to Suddaby's (2010) four criteria for construct clarity: (1) definitions, (2) scope conditions, (3) semantic relationships among those three constructs, and (4) coherence or the "logical consistency of the construct in relation to the overall theoretical argument" (p. 347).
3. Third, assess Corley and Gioia's (2011) use of theory overall by applying relevant criteria regarding the nature and use of theory from Sutton and Staw (1995) and Weick (1995) (e.g., to what extent do Corley and Gioia (2011) address the question of why? Does their effort at developing theory about what constitutes a theoretical contribution reflect the products and/or process of theorizing (Weick, 1995), and if so, how, specifically? To what extent is their work only an expression of the things that Sutton and Staw (1995) indicate are not theory?
4. Demonstrate doctoral level depth, specificity, critical thinking, and analysis.
5. In your conclusion, briefly summarize the findings of your assessment and the bases for those findings.
=============================
4 pages ??" double spaced
Identify and describe the "inner logic" of the Corley and Gioia (2011) article.
As Jordan and Zanna note, “[t]hough it is difficult to remember a series of seemingly disjointed facts, when these facts are joined together in a logical, narrative structure, they become easier to comprehend and recall. Thus, always remember that a research report tells a story. It will help you to organize the information you read, and remember it later.”
Address the following questions in your analysis:
1. What is the authors’ broad, overarching idea or focus?
2. What narrower set of questions do they develop from that broad idea?
3. How are those questions informed by past theory and/or empirical research findings?
4. Is this primarily a theoretical, empirical, or practice oriented paper? How can you tell?
5. Do they test or apply their ideas, and if so how?
6. What are the broader theoretical, empirical, and/or practical implications of their work?
7. How do they contribute to our understanding of the problem under investigation?
8. What is the inner logic of their argument ??" their explanatory narrative - overall?