Theory Definition, Building, and Conflict With Practice

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Theory Building
The Theoretical Framework
Theory and Practical conflicts
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Definition of Theory

Discussion

Theory refers to any coherent description and explanation of an observed phenomenon that offers a testable, verifiable representation of social relationships. Theories allow researchers to speculate about future social activities and also predict behavior drawing on the inferences of explanations. The theory forms the interface of systematic investigation, including analysis of data and interpretation, and the cognitive ability of researchers (Strauss, 1990). The theory provides all concepts or constructs, definitions, and propositions that relate to a research inquiry or problem. It becomes the basis of the research inquiry or investigation. It explains or describes the phenomena upon which the thesis investigation or research hopes to fill the vacuum in the stream of knowledge.

Theory Building

Theories are not discovered in external realities. Rather, they are built through creative imaginations and individual cognitive abilities, which enable researchers to explore logical relationships and causal links between conceptual abstractions (Jaccard, 2009). There are different approaches to understanding theory building. In positivist tradition, theory building is explained as a process that involves formulation of hypotheses that relates variable, collection of data by observation, and data analysis to test the hypothesis (Garratt, 2000). It explores the relative importance of variables, examines cause and effect relationships, and formulation of theoretical statements that can be revised or rejected as new evidence emerges. Anti-positivist tradition depicts theory building as a process that involves selection and naming of the key phenomenon, examination of narrative data that relates to this phenomenon, data codification using classes and sub-classes, and development of ideas using theoretical memos (Kerssens-van Drongelen, 2001).

The Theoretical Framework

There exists much debate about the level of conceptual content or structure required to guide the initial stages of a qualitative research project (Strauss, 1990) There are two extreme positions: effectiveness, where pre-conceived notions are reduced and the researcher is maximally sensitive to concepts arising purely from the data; this implies a research design with little pre-defined structure; efficiency, where pre-conceived notions are used to focus research and the maximum reward is obtained from limited research resources (Milken, 2001). This indicates a research design with some kind of pre-defined theoretical structure. An effective investigative approach, such as grounded theory, may involve prolonged periods in the field, collecting huge amounts of data. On the other hand, an efficient theory may limit the researchers ability to respond flexibly to themes and insights that emerge from the data. Accordingly, qualitative researchers should strive to strike a balance between these two extremes (Marshall, 1995).

Theory and Practical conflicts

As researchers, we are used to justifying our research topics, methods, and findings. When doing so, we usually adhere to paradigms that exist relating to specific research goals, procedures, and practices. Rarely, however, are we as researchers required to explain our theory-building techniques, let alone account for cognitive processes that result in our products based on knowledge. This lack of challenge forms a primary cause of conflict between theory building and practice. this results in poor strategies in theory building, inadequate explanations and potentially causing dangerous policy implementation (Smart, 2006).

Naturally, there is always an existing gap between theory and practice. The problem with most theories is that many researchers find it a problem to make a connection between theory and practice. This leaves one wondering how derived theory relates to present practice. It gives researchers the burden of continually showing how each set of theories in previous research influenced its potential contribution to the existing knowledge base. Such connections between theory and practice must be made on time and early enough to avoid conflict. The second theory and practical conflict relate to the manner of theoretical presentation (Golby, 1995).

It is not always possible to observe every theory or aspect of it systematically. Often, theoretical characteristics remain unknown so that explanation, result, and prediction for a particular event cannot be accurate. An individual can only predict an event to happen if he understands all conditions and circumstances which cause the event to occur. In research, it is very rare to have all information leading to the occurrence of a certain phenomenon and thus explain with certainty this phenomenon. This makes the conversion of theory into practice difficult (Kettley, 2010).

Although theory building can and does result from mainstream approaches to research, criticism has and will continue to result in new insights and theories being developed. But criticism must be channeled in a logical form and any conflict that arises must not become personalized. What is worth mentioning, however, is that if a research student is prepared to think outside the box and face the consequences, the necessary safeguards must be in place (Jaccard, 2009). This means that the necessary supervisory support is provided as and when necessary. However, one must not be overconfident because the theory-building process can be a lengthy affair, and many pitfalls need to be overcome.

Conclusion

This paper intends to encourage further discussions on theory building in the management context and encourage more researchers. We need to keep in mind that we no longer assume that theories, models, and concepts that we have worked with in the past will satisfy what we expect in the future. This may be due to changing parameters. This does not imply that theories, models, and concepts have relevance, but we need to state that processes of globalization and interconnectivity have affected different forms of communication, decision making, and managing. These calls for new ways to procure data and information, and different instruments for analyzing and interpreting data that can assist researchers. Researchers will be required to be more ambitious about studying complex management situations. It is also important for academics to ensure that researchers are confident enough to experiment with different methodological approaches if that is a newly built theory (Connaway, 2010).

Reference List

Connaway, S., & Powell, R. (2010). Basic Research Methods for Librarians. California: Sage publishers.

Garratt, J., Overton, T., Tomlinson, J., & Clow, D. (2000). Critical Thinking Exercises for Chemists. Active Learning in Higher Education. Vol 1 No 2, pp. 152-67.

Golby, M., & Appleby, R. (1995). Reflective Practice Through Critical friendship. Cambridge Journal of Education. Vol 25 No 2, pp.149-60.

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2009). Theory Construction and Model Building Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. (2001). The Iterative Theory Building process. Management Decisions, Vol 19 No 7, pp. 503-12.

Kettley, N. (2010). Theory Build in Education Research. New York: Cengage.

Marshal, C., & Rossman, B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. California: Sage.

Milken, J. (2001). Qualitative Research and Marketing Management. Management Decision, Vol 39 No 1, pp 71-7.

Smart, J. (2006). Higher education Handbook Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications, Newbury.

Click Here To Order Now!