Weick, Karl, E., What Theory is Not, Theorizing Is, ASQ, 1995, 40: 385-390.

---

Products of the theorizing process seldom emerge as full-blown theories. Some are weak because of laziness, some weak because the authors are still inching to something more forceful. Ruling out the "not theory" things like diagrams, lists, make sense if people are being lazy but not if they are struggling with difficult issues.

Theory is not something one "adds" to data, or someting that one transforms from weaker to stronger by means of graphics or references, or can be feigned by flashy conceptual performance.

But the five "not theory" pieces often do embed some theory, and there are gradiations of each factor.

Most theories are approximate theories. Merton says they take four forms:
* general orientations
* analysis of concepts
* post-fact interpretation from a single observation
* empirical generalization

While they are not full theories, they can serve as means to further development.

Like Sutton and Shaw say, it is hard in this low-paradigm field to spot which efforts are theory are which are not. Theory can take a variety of forms and is a continuum .

One can also go directly from data to prescription without a theory, as doctors go from symtoms to treatment without a diagnosis sometimes. Data, lists, diagrams are not theory but can help point to and elaborate theories.

Ultimately, the question becomes do you publish "ends" or also "interim struggles". The ongoing activites often create the lists, diagrams, etc. that eventually can become real theory. "Those emergent products summarize progress, give direction, and serve as placemakers.