1

Joining Phenomena to Theory

“Crossing the Theory Practice Chasm” PDWAcademy of Management 2015

Joel WestProfessor, Innovation &

EntrepreneurshipAugust 7, 2015

2

Lure of Phenomena

Phenomena (esp. new ones) can be exciting• Fun to research• Emic approach: easier to understand, talk to managers• Interesting for students and external stakeholders• “Sexy” topic for academic readers & reviewers• Potential for novel contribution*

Nobody loves your stories as much as you do!• Reviewers always want you to answer: “so what?”• What are the managerial implications?• Or contributions to academic theory?

* See Murray S. Davis, “That’s Interesting!” (1971)

3

Careers Inform Research

• Industry career in software• Student programmer (1976-79), engineer (1980-87)• Entrepreneur, manager, engineer (1987-2002)

• Academic career studying high-tech firms• Doctoral student (1994-2000), post-doc (2000-02)• Faculty: SJSU (2002-2011), KGI (2011- )

• Doctoral student papers• West (1995): Japanese software copyright• West (1996): Japan’s Internet policy• West (2000): origins of US, Japan, EU cellphones• West & Dedrick (2000): Japanese PC standards

4

1. Open Source Software

• Interest: paradox of profiting from opennenss• Started with a conference paper

• West & Dedrick (2001)• West (RP 2003) ††• Kwan & West (chapter 2005)• West & Gallagher (R&D Mgt 2006) ††• West (2007)• West & Dedrick (2008)• Dedrick & West (chapter 2008)• West & O’Mahony (I&I 2008) †, ††• West & Lakhani (I&I 2008) ††

† Rejected from a special issue†† Published in a special issue

5

2. 3-D printing

• Interest: low entry barriers in 3D printing• Started with a special issue paper

• West & Kuk (TFSC 2016):†† case study of market leader• West & Greul (chapter 2016): “maker” movement• Greul, West & Bock (wp 2015):† crowdfunding• Bock, West & Greul (wp 2015): user entrepreneurs

† Rejected from a special issue†† Published in a special issue

6

3. NSF Project

Pending NSF award for 3 year project• Interview data (Joel West)• Survey data (Paul Olk of U. Denver)

Reviewers• “The proposal addresses a new model”• “This proposal identifies something new”• “[X] is a relatively new phenomenon, and as a result

relatively little is known”

Success studying phenomena begets success• “The two PIs are well qualified to perform the analysis.”

7

“So What?”

Phenomena are great, but others ask “so what?”• You must show how this generalizes to other contexts

Guest Editor: “How open is open enough?” 2002• “Both reviewers note the lack of ‘theoretical bite’ in your

paper [which] leads Reviewer 2 to question the value of your contribution.… The paper needs better positioning in the literature.”

Rev: “…lead market for Shannon Theory,” 2007• “This is a paper that has very rich data but needs a lot of

work to be done on the theorizing front.”

8

“So What?” (2)

Review: “… Apple’s iPhone,” 2008• “The weakness of this paper lies in the lack of a clear,

overarching research question, and the lack of explanation on any theoretical framework.”

Review: “… MakerBot … in 3D printing,” 2014• “[you] do not bring both together, the (missing) theory

with the empirical evidence to derive important implications.”

You must explain its broader applicability• To get published…• To get cited…

9

Recommendations

1. Always think about the potential “so what”• When you design the study• Before and while going into the field• As you submit to a journal• Verify data actually support your claimed contribution

2. Re-use prior theory, methods and measures

3. Find collaborators with complementary skills• Identifying and understanding “sexy” phenomena is valued• Find co-authors with better theory or methods• Learn from them!