Descriptive and prescriptive theorizing are two sides of the same coin and fundamentally complementary, if not reciprocal in their relationship. Both have a place in management theorizing, yet this Point-Counterpoint debate takes issue with how they are currently performed in research. The Point makes the case for prescriptive theorizing to help tackle societal grand challenges and meaningfully impact practice, and it offers a recipe for doing this on a solid normative foundation. The Counterpoint cautions against the impact that such prescriptions may have and calls for more contextualized approaches. In this introduction to the debate, I intend to take the conversation that both the Point and Counterpoint have provoked even further by highlighting some under-emphasized but important theoretical avenues to examine the (un)intended consequences of both prescriptive and descriptive theorizing; namely by mobilizing research on performativity and counter-performativity.
Prescriptive Theorizing to Tackle Societal Grand Challenges: Promises and Perils
Introduction by Christopher Wickert
Prescriptive Theorizing in Management Research: A New Impetus for Addressing Grand Challenges
Point by Marvin Hanisch
Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch’s Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing
Counterpoint by Samuel Horner, Joep Cornelissen & Mike Zundel
