I sometimes think that insufficient theoretical contribution is examiners’ go-to reason for requesting a PhD resubmission. You may have immaculate methods, and original empirical findings but when the examiners’ report lands in your inbox – there it is “insufficient theoretical contribution”. So let’s unpick this dreaded phrase.
What is the role of theory?
The role of theory is to help organise our thoughts, to explain the phenomena of interest, and to ensure our explanations are consistent. Beyond this, they guide our assumptions and predictions and help shape our research designs. Put simply, theory is important. So how can you make sure your thesis will be assessed to have made a theoretical contribution? Well, let’s first agree on the two components of the contribution: originality (novelty) and utility (usefulness).
Originality of your theoretical contribution
The originality of your theoretical contribution is derived from its implications for that theory. The two main implications for theory your findings are going to have are to confirm it or to disprove it. In reality, a third implication is also common – that your findings confirm the theory but in a setting/context/population for which it has yet to be tested. This latter case can also be (and often is) proposed as a contribution.
Utility
Turning to utility, this refers either to the scientific usefulness of the contribution and its broader implications for research or equally validly to its practical usefulness. Scientific utility has been described as is perceived as “an advance that improves conceptual rigour or the specificity of an idea and/or enhances its potential to be operationalized and tested” (Corley and Gioia, 2011, p.17). The practical alternative is demonstrated by showing how your theoretical contribution can be directly applied to practice in the relevant field, for example, to solve a real-world problem.
So we are left with a matrix of theoretical contributions that looks like Figure 1. Your claimed contribution should appear somewhere on here.
Figure 1: The theoretical contribution matrix (Corley & Gioia, 2011).
Remember, your theoretical contribution is not expected to change the world. Rarely a contribution may be revelatory but the notion of incremental insights has long been accepted as the norm (Kaplan, 1964).
Many PhD candidates I have talked to emphasise the empirical work they are undertaking and some even view the theoretical contribution as burdensome and unnecessary. To these, I would just say that many examiners would disagree with you, and if you don’t want to spend six months or even a year with this burden, then you need to cover it off in your first (and hopefully only) submission.
Summary on “insufficient theoretical contribution”
Insufficient theoretical contribution is one of the most common reasons for requesting a resubmission but also for rejecting journal articles, so if you have a career in academic publishing in mind getting to grips with your theoretical contribution may be time well spent.
Further reading
Ågerfalk, Pär J.(2014) “Insufficient theoretical contribution: a conclusive rationale for rejection?.”: European Journal of Information Systems (2014) 23,
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 36(1), 12-32.593-599. https://cmsdev.aom.org/uploadedfiles/publications/amr/corleygioiabuildingtheory.pdf
Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioural science. San Francisco: Chandler.
If you need help preparing for your thesis resubmission then drop me an email today.
