Commentary on Gilfillan, Morrow-Muchinsky, and Bluedorn-Evered

Abstract

Each of the three papers in this section of the book makes important contributions to our understanding of middle range theory. Gilfillan has made a valiant attempt to make the concept of middle range theory operational by laying down ten criteria that distinguish middle range theories from empirical generalizations on the one hand and from grand theories on the other hand. Morrow and Muchinsky have argued that the ultimate goal of scientific inquiry is to develop general theories, and that the use of middle range theories (MRTs) can play an important role in this process through the gradual consolidation of MRTs into theories of increasing generality. Bluedorn and Evered, in contrast to Gilfillan, have rejected the notion of middle range theory as a well-defined absolute concept and have suggested instead that middle rangedness is a relative concept and that what is at issue is not the use of MRTs but the employment of a middle range strategy for theory construction. Furthermore, they argue that the middle range strategy is only one of several possible strategies, and that we in organizational behavior should avoid anointing the middle range strategy as the best and only acceptable way of conducting scientific inquiry. Taken together these contributions resolve certain conflicts and gaps in our understanding of how to conduct inquiry into organizational phenomena.