‘Borrowing’ Theory: What Does This Mean and When Does It Make Sense in Management Scholarship?
探讨了管理研究中“借用”其他领域理论的做法，分析了其含义、风险与价值，并呈现了支持与反对两种观点的辩论，对管理学者反思理论构建方式有启发。
One common approach scholars use in management studies to develop theory is what I will call ‘borrowing’, i.e. bringing ideas from one theoretical domain to address an issue or explain a phenomenon in another domain. An example of this practice would be Burgelman's (1991) use of evolutionary theory to explain how firms renew organizational competencies. Borrowing ideas from a field like biology for theory development in a social science is not without risks, however, and an interest in these risks is what sparked this Point–Counterpoint. Zahra and Newey (2009) offer an appealing framework for thinking about the opportunities and challenges of borrowing and integrating theories across domains (or ‘intersecting’ as they say). The idea in their paper is that integration of theory may be done in one of three ways (potentially overlapping): (1) application or replication from the parent to the focal domain, where neither is changed very much; (2) theory extension in the focal domain based on ideas in the parent; and (3) transformation of ideas in the parent domain based on what is learned from its extension into the focal domain. They note that the last of these three offers the greatest challenges and risks, but argue passionately that this kind of borrowing creates the greatest impact. Interestingly, these authors conceptualize impact broadly, including influences on field boundaries, researchers' scholarly development and impact on external constituencies, i.e. practitioners. One of the key contributions of this essay is what the authors call ‘the impact wheel’. Markóczy and Deeds (2009) take on the fundamental premise of Zahra and Newey's essay. They challenge the very idea of integrating theories across domains – particularly when such efforts stretch across different disciplines. What is interesting about their challenge is that it doesn't oppose the potential value of theoretical integration that Zahra and Newey describe. Instead, they propose that borrowing theory from disciplines outside of management sacrifices another important goal – developing and maintaining management as a distinctive and legitimate academic field. Accomplishing this goal, they maintain, requires paradigmatic discipline of the kind described in Pfeffer (1993), and this discipline means building theory from ideas within our field rather than reaching outside it. Recognizing that the field may be a long way from this goal, these authors have strong words for those who would advocate for a more pluralistic stance: ‘In our view it is time for the discipline of management to grow up and look to itself first for explanations of phenomena rather than continue to first seek to integrate and synthesize theories and methods from other disciplines’ (p. 1079). For Markóczy and Deeds, borrowing theory amounts to a kind of scholarly infidelity. As with most controversies, both sides have important lessons to teach us. Zahra and Newey do much to help us understand what borrowing theory means and how to do it in a way that maximizes impact. Markóczy and Deeds help us understand the consequences of such borrowing on broader issues in our field's development and therefore suggest why we should constrain it. Enjoy this debate and feel free to post a reaction or comment using the new Correspondence feature of our website at http://www.respond2articles.com/jms.