This dissertation examines the multi-dimensionality of constructs used in the evaluation of theories in Strategic Management and Organization Theory. Building on the works of Miner and other authors, informativeness is introduced as a higher-order construct in the evaluation of a theory. Four theoretical streams were identified, and an instrument was developed and tested for theory evaluation. The evaluations were anchored on eight theoretical exemplars from the four identified theoretical streams. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to investigate the factor structure of the survey data. Alternative structures were examined and a preferred structure was identified.
The data from this study established the multi-dimensionality of factors in theory evaluation. Two hypotheses are explicitly tested. The first tested the existence of a higher-order construct in the evaluation of theories; it was shown that novelty, extendibility and practicability are dimensions of a higher-order construct of informativeness. The second hypothesis, which was held in the light of the data, predicted that this higher-order construct (informativeness) is a predictor of the importance of a theory.
This dissertation makes the following contributions to the literature. First, the dissertation advances an instrument for the comprehensive evaluation of a theory. Theoretical contributions can be assessed using the scales developed and refined here. The instrument can also be used by future research on evaluation of theoretical contributions.
Second, this dissertation sheds light on the underlying factor structure of common theory evaluation considerations. In particular, novelty, extendibility, practicability, internal consistency, and falsifiability were found to be dimensions of evaluation of the theoretical work.
Third and most important, this dissertation introduces the higher-order construct of informativeness and finds it to be the key evaluative criterion for theories in management. Future research and practice (i.e. academic reviews) should draw from the sub-dimensions uncovered here when seeking evaluation across different raters, or across different theoretical contributions.