Chapter 2
Strategy scholars once organized their work around big theoretical frameworks. Today, about two-thirds of papers are phenomenon-driven, and no single theory commands more than 5% of the field.
I used an LLM (GPT-4o-mini) to read each of the 6,928 abstracts and classify every paper as primarily theory-driven or phenomenon-driven. The chart shows the share of each type over time, smoothed with a 3-year rolling average.
Using a 3-year rolling average, theory-driven work peaked around 2002–2003 at roughly 52% of papers.
Since then, phenomenon-driven research has risen to about 65% of published papers.
Scholars increasingly frame their contributions around particular settings, such as platform competition, CEO succession, or corporate social responsibility, rather than building or testing general theories.
I used an LLM (GPT-4o-mini) to read each of the 6,928 abstracts and classify every paper as primarily theory-driven or phenomenon-driven. The chart shows the share of each type over time, smoothed with a 3-year rolling average.
Using a 3-year rolling average, theory-driven work peaked around 2002–2003 at roughly 52% of papers.
Since then, phenomenon-driven research has risen to about 65% of published papers.
Scholars increasingly frame their contributions around particular settings, such as platform competition, CEO succession, or corporate social responsibility, rather than building or testing general theories.
Which theories rose and fell along the way?
The map in the previous chapter shows a field that diversified dramatically. But for most of its history, strategy research was organized around a small number of grand theories.
I searched each paper's abstract for explicit mentions of major theoretical frameworks, including “resource-based view,” “transaction cost,” and “dynamic capabilities.” This chart shows the mention rate over time, smoothed with a 5-year rolling average.
Transaction Cost Economics explained firm boundaries through the logic of make-versus-buy.
The Resource-Based View argued that firms differ because they control different bundles of valuable, rare, and inimitable resources.
Dynamic Capabilities extended these ideas to ask how firms adapt and reconfigure their resource base over time.
Together, these frameworks accounted for a large share of published research through the 1990s and early 2000s.
But their prevalence has steadily faded. No single theory has risen to take their place.
The map in the previous chapter shows a field that diversified dramatically. But for most of its history, strategy research was organized around a small number of grand theories.
I searched each paper's abstract for explicit mentions of major theoretical frameworks, including “resource-based view,” “transaction cost,” and “dynamic capabilities.” This chart shows the mention rate over time, smoothed with a 5-year rolling average.
Transaction Cost Economics explained firm boundaries through the logic of make-versus-buy.
The Resource-Based View argued that firms differ because they control different bundles of valuable, rare, and inimitable resources.
Dynamic Capabilities extended these ideas to ask how firms adapt and reconfigure their resource base over time.
Together, these frameworks accounted for a large share of published research through the 1990s and early 2000s.
But their prevalence has steadily faded. No single theory has risen to take their place.
If grand theories no longer organize the field, what replaced them?
I tracked 50 sub-areas and compared their share of published papers between 2008–2013 and 2020–2025.
The areas that declined tend to be organized around abstract theoretical frameworks: Dynamic Capabilities, Transaction Cost Economics, the Resource-Based View.
The areas that grew tend to be organized around real-world phenomena: entrepreneurship, digital platforms, CSR, gender and governance, nonmarket strategy.
The pattern is suggestive: the sub-areas that grew tend to be organized around real-world phenomena, while the ones that shrank tend to be organized around abstract theories.
I tracked 50 sub-areas and compared their share of published papers between 2008–2013 and 2020–2025.
The areas that declined tend to be organized around abstract theoretical frameworks: Dynamic Capabilities, Transaction Cost Economics, the Resource-Based View.
The areas that grew tend to be organized around real-world phenomena: entrepreneurship, digital platforms, CSR, gender and governance, nonmarket strategy.
The pattern is suggestive: the sub-areas that grew tend to be organized around real-world phenomena, while the ones that shrank tend to be organized around abstract theories.