Introduction to the Special Section on Theoretical Models and Conceptual Analyses Theory in Applied Psychology: Lessons (Re)Learned

Theories provide meaning. They allow us to understand and interpret data. Theories specify which variables are important and for what reasons, describe and explain the relationships that link the variables, and identify the boundary conditions under which variables should or should not be related (Campbell, 1990). Theories help identify and define problems, prescribe a means for evaluating or solving the problems, and facilitate responses to new problems. They permit generalization beyond the immediate sample and provide a basis for making predictions. Theory tells us why something occurs, not simply what occurs. Research in the absence of theory is often trivial—a technical feat more likely to yield confusion and boredom than insight. In contrast, research that is guided by theory, or that develops theory, generates understanding and excitement. To signal the commitment of the Journal of Applied Psychology not only to the publication of theory-driven and theory-building research but also to the publication of theory per se, in September 2002 the journal issued a call for papers that present new theoretical models and conceptual analyses. We urged authors to submit conceptual manuscripts that extend beyond the current literature— that offer more than a review of the existing literature and more than a repackaging of established constructs and models. We emphasized that manuscripts should offer new theoretical insights and propose new explanations of constructs, relationships, and/or phenomena in applied psychology. We hoped to receive innovative manuscripts that would break new theoretical ground while offering testable propositions and applied implications. The response to our call for papers was gratifying. We received 91 submissions, addressing topics of great interest to Journal of Applied Psychology readers, including motivation, leadership, teams and groups, culture, and justice. We concluded that scholars are eager to make theoretical contributions and to explore new outlets for their theoretical work. We were delighted with the reception but hasten to note that the journal has always been open to publishing nonempirical manuscripts, and we remain open to publishing nonempirical manuscripts of relevance to applied psychology in organizational settings at any time. We issued a call for theoretical models and conceptual analyses not to limit the publication of such manuscripts to a special section but to encourage the continuing submission of such manuscripts. Although the response to our call for papers was gratifying, it also reminded us of the difficulty of creating clear, convincing, and compelling theory. At the time of this writing, we anticipate an acceptance rate of about 13% to 20%. (The overall acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Applied Psychology in 1995 was 18%.) The review process has taught, or perhaps retaught, us important lessons about theory building—about what theory is and, in the words of Sutton and Staw (1995), what theory is not. Graduate students in applied psychology and related fields frequently take multiple classes in research methods and statistics. However, they often learn theory building on their own. We hope that our comments are useful for those in and out of graduate school who seek to develop, or simply to evaluate and appreciate, theory. Below we offer a set of guidelines designed to assist authors in developing theory and in presenting it most effectively. These guidelines are based on our understanding of theory and our experiences in evaluating the theory submissions we received in response to the call for papers. To develop these guidelines, we examined the manuscripts we received in response to the call for papers, the reviews of each of these manuscripts, and our own action letters. These lessons are by no means original to us. They have been articulated in a number of commentaries on theory development (e.g., Campbell, 1990; Daft, 1995; Goodson & MorKatherine J. Klein was on the faculty of the University of Maryland when work on this special section and on this introduction began. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to either Katherine J. Klein, Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Steinberg Hall–Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6364 or Sheldon Zedeck, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1650. E-mail: KleinK@wharton .upenn.edu or [email protected] Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 2004, Vol. 89, No. 6, 931–933 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.931