On nuance

Keeping in theme with the swearing, another paper I would like to present is “Fuck Nuance” by Kieran Healy, a sociology professor. He describes the trap of trying to explain complex social science problems with ever more complex theories. It’s akin to the tendency of asking the seminar question: “Have you thought about all these other factors that also might play a role?” ¹. I see it a lot and when my undergraduates, honours and Phd students try to improve on a theory. They just try to add more bells and whistles. I guess in some of the accounting literature it shows up as tesing for more and more variables that explain earnings management or that moderate the effect of incentives on performance.

Healy gives three reasons why too much nuance in a theory is possibe and should be avoided.

1. If theories can be ever more expanded upon by making them more nuanced it becomes more difficult to refute them. In that sense, Agency Theory is not really a theory. You can always come up with a new Agency Theory model that fits your data. A single Agency Theory model can be seen as a theory and can be refuted by data. A good theory does not need to be adapted for each new application.

2. Less nuance can be interesting. Healy explains that the interestingness of a theory is not just an attribute of a theory, it also depends on who is communicating and who is the audience. In a literature full of nuanced theories, where every effect depends on country specific institutions, a simple theory that holds universally is interesting.

3. There are also strategic reasons to not care too much about nuanced theories. Simpeler theories are easier to communicate and understand. They can spread easier.