Sub-Plenary 2-5

Deep Knowledge and Profound Impact:
Perspectives and Prospects for Phenomenon-driven Research in Organization and Management Studies

A sub-plenary organized and supported by the EGOS journals Organization Studies and Organization Theory

Organizers & Moderators:
Joep P. Cornelissen, Co-Editor-in-Chief Organization Theory
Markus A. Höllerer, Co-Editor-in-Chief Organization Theory
Paolo Quattrone, Co-Editor-in-Chief Organization Studies
Tammar B. Zilber, Co-Editor-in-Chief Organization Studies
 
Panelists:
Evelyn Micelotta, Co-Editor-in-Chief Family Business Review
Sigrid Quack, incoming Co-Editor-in-Chief Organization Theory
Gavin Schwarz, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
 

Overall, the aims for this sub-plenary are (1) to offer a platform for revitalizing the role of phenomenon-driven research within organization studies, and (2) to expand our collective understanding of the different ways in which phenomenon-driven research can produce actionable knowledge and foster deep understandings of important organizational and societal phenomena.
 
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a growing crisis of confidence in the mainstream models of theorizing and research, and the degree to which the kinds of theory-driven knowledge that it produces can do justice to the complexity and dynamics of organizational phenomena; including the lived experience of those living in organizations. At the same time, however, most of the published theoretical and empirical papers in many journals continue to be built around a contribution to a standalone ‘theory’ as the main and oftentimes only objective. This particular emphasis on contributing to a theory – as opposed to contributions to knowledge about phenomena – means that certain important phenomena (such as inequality, social unrest and instability, climate change, racism, and gender discrimination) may either remain somewhat overlooked; or when they are considered, they simply serve as the grist for the theoretical mill with a phenomenon being studied to further elaborate or qualify a specific theory (such as paradox theory, institutional theory, sensemaking theory, etc.).
 
On the back of the continued criticism of our undue focus on theory, calls have been made for the field to revitalise phenomenon-driven research as a viable alternative out of the ‘theory crisis’ and as a way of developing deeper, more varied and relevant forms of knowledge for society. A focus on contributions to knowledge about phenomena, it is suggested, avoids mistaking a theoretical contribution with a contribution to a theory. The latter runs the risk of becoming a stylistic and self-referential exercise of gap filling; whereas the former involves the effort of providing meaningful, valid, and generalizable views on certain phenomena that builds on prior scholarship and pushes our current knowledge and forms of understanding. Such a phenomenon-driven focus additionally calls for new methodologies that may be required to study phenomena more richly and powerfully than what was previously done through the spectre of a particular theory.
 
But, despite its general potential, inevitable questions surface about what kinds of phenomenon-driven approaches are out there; what they each offer; and how their contributions can be judged in furthering our understanding of important phenomena. The role of theory does not completely disappear in such approaches – but is nonetheless different from conventional standards around theoretical contributions. What, then, can be said about theory, or theorizing, as part of phenomenon-driven research, and how does it contribute to the knowledge produced?
 
With this sub-plenary, we aim to offer perspectives on these questions, and aim to do so by featuring a set of contributions and debate along three lines: (a) what are some of the kinds of phenomenon-based research that are particularly promising to study grand challenges, the changing world of work and organizations, and other important contemporary phenomena; (b) what similarities and differences exist between them; and how do these relate to ontological, epistemological and methodological commitments and possibilities; and (c) how will their contributions to knowledge be judged by peers, including editors and reviewers of journals, who until recently have been primarily focused on contributions to ‘theory’?