Caught in a Landslide? Exploring how Far the Increasing Focus on Big Data Benefits or Damages Theoretical Development in Management Studies

Abstract

The author teams in this Point-Counterpoint (PCP) put forward contrasting views regarding the benefits – or otherwise – of using commercially generated corporate ‘big data’ algorithms to inform scholarly research. In this editorial, I reflect on the lines of reasoning for, and against, whether such data offers a reliable means of building new theory. Are academics who refuse to mine and analyse corporately owned big data taking sensible steps to manage scholarly integrity? Or are they Luddites? I invite readers to consider these timely and provocative PCP articles and to consider the implications, for management studies, of the key arguments presented.

Organizations, Institutions, and Symbols: Introduction to a Point‐Counterpoint Conversation

Abstract

The symbol is one of the key concepts in organization and management scholarship. Yet as indicated by the authors in this debate, it has not been adequately conceptualized and as such it remains rather blunt and opaque. In what is the first systematic conceptual debate on this topic, the authors of this Point-Counterpoint debate seek to address this issue. The respective essays, despite marked differences in their approaches, offer novel and thought-provoking accounts of what the symbol is and how it works. Taken together, these contributions offer a series of exciting new avenues to guide and redirect future research in this area.

Ernst Cassirer and the Symbolic Foundation of Institutions

Abstract

In this Counterpoint, we introduce a conceptualization of the symbol that constructively contrasts the ideas presented by Phillips and Moser. We do not see the need to mobilize ideas and vocabularies from evolutionary biology, as they do, but instead propose to return to cultural approaches to the symbol that resonate more deeply and profoundly within our discipline. Specifically, we revisit the work of German philosopher Ernst Cassirer on the symbolic foundation of culture and society. To fully harness the potential of such a renewed approach in organization research, we encourage a conversation with foundational and more recent work in institutional organization theory. The aims of our article are to (a) offer an alternative understanding of the symbol; and (b) elaborate how such understanding can reinvigorate organizational and institutional analysis.

Organizations as Algorithms: A New Metaphor for Advancing Management Theory

Abstract

According to the ‘Point’ essay, management research's reliance on corporate data threatens to replace objective theory with profit-biased ‘corporate empiricism’, undermining the scientific and ethical integrity of the field. In this ‘Counterpoint’ essay, we offer a more expansive understanding of big data and algorithmic processing and, by extension, see promising applications to management theory. Specifically, we propose a novel management metaphor: organizations as algorithms. This metaphor offers three insights for developing innovative, relevant, and grounded organization theory. First, agency is distributed in assemblages rather than being solely attributed to individuals, algorithms, or data. Second, machine-readability serves as the immutable and mobile base for organizing and decision-making. Third, prompting and programming transform the role of professional expertise and organizational relationships with technologies. Contrary to the ‘Point’ essay, we see no theoretical ‘end’ in sight; the organization as algorithm metaphor enables scholars to build innovative theories that account for the intricacies of algorithmic decision-making.

Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch’s Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing

Abstract

In this paper we provide a counterpoint to the view that prescriptive theorizing reflects a viable means for enhancing the practical impact of management theorizing towards addressing some of the most pressing societal concerns and grand challenges of our times. To do so, we first contextualize the roots of prescriptive theorizing in management research, arguing that the approach developed by Hanisch is reflective of the wider ‘positive’ prescriptive turn in social science theorizing. Second, we problematize the presumptive basis upon which much prescriptive theorizing as well as related ideas around utopian thinking are based. In doing so, our broader aim is to draw attention to the bases upon which prescriptive claims are made and we specifically highlight the dangers of implementing decontextualized, overly simple and stylized prescriptions in the face of complex grand challenges. In contrast to prescriptive theorizing, we propose that the practical impact of management theory may rather be enhanced through a tempering of instrumental rationality with a deep(er) concern for phenomena and experience. We conclude the paper by offering a number of ways in which this can be done.

Prescriptive Theorizing in Management Research: A New Impetus for Addressing Grand Challenges

Abstract

Although management research has a rich tradition of both descriptive and prescriptive theorizing, the latter is often (and erroneously) viewed as unscientific, purely practice-oriented, or simply a corollary of descriptive analysis. Prescriptive theorizing concerns how things should be and how they can be achieved, as opposed to descriptive theorizing, which focuses on why or how things are (interrelated). Accordingly, prescriptive theorizing has strong normative and instrumental properties, which are especially relevant when addressing pressing societal, ecological, and ethical concerns, also referred to as grand challenges, that demand a re-evaluation of established norms and behavioural patterns. However, this opportunity is currently underutilized in the management literature, and there is a lack of guidance on how to leverage the principles of prescriptive theorizing. Therefore, I clarify its main characteristics, outline how scholars can construct rigorous prescriptive arguments, and show how normative and instrumental reasoning can promote positive social change. Embracing prescriptive theorizing as a vital complement to descriptive theorizing in management research provides scholars with an intellectual toolkit to actively engage in the urgent discourse on grand challenges and develop compelling new and impactful theories.

The Biological Basis of the Symbolic: Exploring the Implications of the Co‐Evolution of Language, Cognition and Sociality for Management Studies

Abstract

In this essay, we approach the question of what it means for something to be symbolic in a different way from the usual answers rooted in philosophy, sociology or anthropology: we argue that the symbolic is, first and foremost, rooted in human biology and human evolution. We discuss how the development of the capability to create and share symbols was a key moment in human evolution that underpins our capability to communicate and store knowledge through language, to think abstractly about problems, and to live and work together effectively in large groups. It also underpins the unique ecological niche – the cognitive niche – that Homo sapiens construct using our capability to create and share symbols. We go on to explore some of the implications of an evolutionary understanding of the symbolic for management and organization research.

Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision‐Making and the Future of Management Theory

Abstract

The future of theory in the age of big data and algorithms is a frequent topic in management research. However, with corporate ownership of big data and data processing capabilities designed for profit generation increasing rapidly, we witness a shift from scientific to ‘corporate empiricism’. Building on this debate, our ‘Point’ essay argues that theorizing in management research is at risk now. Unlike the ‘Counterpoint’ article, which portrays a bright future for management theory given available technological opportunities, we are concerned about management researchers increasingly ‘borrowing’ data from the corporate realm (e.g., Google et al.) to build or test theory. Our objection is that this data borrowing can harm scientific theorizing due to how scaling effects, proxy measures and algorithmic decision-making performatively combine to undermine the scientific validity of theories. This undermining occurs through reducing scientific explanations, while technology shapes theory and reality in a profit-predicting rather than in a truth-seeking manner. Our essay has meta-theoretical implications for management theory per se, as well as for political debates concerning the jurisdiction and legitimacy of knowledge claims in management research. Practically, these implications connect to debates on scientific responsibilities of researchers.