The Problem with Propositions: Theoretical Triangulation to Better Explain Phenomena in Management Research
指出管理研究中依赖命题式理论解释的弊端，如高假阳性率，并提出通过理论三角测量（迭代使用多种理论语法）来增强现象解释力，减少推断偏差。
In management research, theory is commonly viewed as a set of propositional statements backed up by theoretical assumptions. This view is embraced across conceptual and empirical research and effectively binds a particular style of reasoning, as a common grammar, to a specific form that theoretical explanations, as a structured set of propositions, should take. In this paper, I analyze characteristics of the propositional grammar and highlight several significant problems, including its high incidence rate of false positives in empirical research (false hypotheses that are accepted as true) and how it generally limits our explanation of phenomena by casting them as effects to be predicted. Informed by this analysis, I make the case for theoretical triangulation and offer a prescriptive model whereby researchers can strengthen their explanations of phenomena by iterating across multiple theoretical grammars rather than steadfastly using a single grammar. Using examples from prior research, I show how such theoretical triangulation helps mitigate the specific inferential biases and threats to validity of any grammar and leads to better explanations overall. Finally, I spell out the implications of this argument and offer a set of practical recommendations for implementing the practice of theoretical triangulation in the field of management research.