theory-building research. The aim of this exploration of practice is the same as the aim of the exploration of theory, i.e. to find candidate prop-
ositions for testing and, second, to select one or more of these propositions for being tested in the study. One difference is that the exploration of prac-
tice is aimed at identifying other types of theory than “academic theories” published in the scientific literature, namely “theories-in-use”.
A theory-in-use is a practitioner’s knowledge of “what works” in practice, expressed in terms of an object of study, variables, hypotheses, and a
practice domain.
The assumption underlying most theory-building or “exploratory” research is that “nothing is known yet” about the relevant aspects of the
object of study. This might be true for the theory as explored in the first phase of exploration of theory but is usually not true for practi-
tioners. In an exploration of practice, it is usually discovered that a whole set of more or less explicit theories about relevant aspects of the
object of study exists. Practitioners formulate them all the time, and could be the basis for ideas for propositions of a theory. How could
such “theories-in-use” as formulated and exchanged by practitioners be discovered? Some of the relevant strategies are the following:
■
gathering information from general media such as news- papers, television, and the internet;
■
reading professional literature, such as the managerial, pro- fessional, and trade literature regarding or related to the
object of study;
■
communicating with practitioners with experience regarding the object of study;
■
visiting places where the object of study occurs and observing it;
■
participating in situations in which the object of study occurs. Regarding the actual discovery of propositions in what is read,
observed, or heard in this exploration of practice, it is important to recognize that the relevant sources are not “theoretical” in the aca-
demic sense and, therefore, will rarely present their insights as “prop- ositions” or “hypotheses”. However, if, for instance, managers of
innovation projects are asked why some of these projects were success- ful and others not, the answers might be formulated as: “We did not
have sufficient resources {of such and such a type}, so it could not be successful” or “Commitment of top management helped a lot”. Each of
such statements can be formulated as a usually more abstract prop- osition, such as: “Having sufficient resources is a necessary condition for
success of projects in this firm”, and “More management commitment will result in more success of projects in this firm”.
If this exploration of practice is successful, this phase of the research process can be concluded with a list of candidate propositions. Next, it
should be decided which of these propositions is worth testing. It is useful to contact again an expert in the theory to discuss the results of
this exploration and to decide which of the resulting propositions should be tested in order to make the study a relevant contribution to
development of the theory.
In terms of Flowchart 2, we can now move to theory-testing research, which will be discussed in Chapter 4. If this exploration of practice is
not successful, we can then move to theory-building research, which will be discussed in Chapter 8.
3.2.5.3 Exploration of practice for confirming the relevance of a proposition
If the exploration of theory has resulted in the identification of a proposition for testing, we still also advise conducting some form of
exploration of practice. The aim of this exploration is to acquire real life experience regarding the object of study. This real life experience can be
acquired in the same way as when we are aiming at discovering “theories-in-use”, as discussed in 3.2.5.2.
The result of such an exploration of practice is knowledge regarding the actual variation of aspects of the object of study. For instance, if the
object of study is innovation projects, an exploration of practice will yield an insight into the number of such projects in different economic
sectors, an idea about how successful they usually are, some knowledge about ways these projects are organized, etc. Such insights are also very
helpful in later stages of the research process, such as in identifying, selecting, and accessing instances for measurement as well as for
developing ideas about how measurement could be organized.
3.2.6 Contributions to theory development
A contribution to the development of a theory is, thus, any activity that can be located in Flowchart 2. The different types of exploration do not
entail “research”. Nevertheless we consider exploration as an import- ant activity in theory development in which the researcher must
creatively combine ideas from others and hisher own ideas.
Theory-oriented research is either theory-building or theory-testing. The fact that there is no output at the end of the flowchart but rather
a replication loop is significant. This means that, although a single project that contributes to theory development will have an end see
Flowchart 1, there is usually no end to the further development of a theory see Flowchart 2. Theory-oriented research is hardly ever “fin-
ished”. This also means that every contribution in any place in Flowchart 2 is relevant. Contributing to the development of a theory
entails always adding a small brick to a large building.
Many theory-oriented research proposals mention as their objective to “fill a gap” in our theoretical knowledge. Usually this means that the
authors have found that a relevant proposition has not yet been for- mulated. “Filling the gap”, then, means formulating a new proposition:
theory-building research. Flowchart 2 helps to identify other types of “gap” in a theory. It is, for instance, also a “gap” if a proposition is not,
or not yet, sufficiently tested. Thus, theory-testing research can also be seen as “filling a gap” in our theoretical knowledge, and perhaps an
even more important one.
3.3 Principles of practice-oriented research
The objective of practice-oriented research is to contribute to the knowledge of a practitioner not practitioners in general. A practi-
tioner is a person or group of persons with either a formal or an infor-
mal responsibility for a real life situation in which heshe acts or must act. A practitioner can be a person a manager, an entrepreneur, a pol-
icy maker, a staff member, etc. or a group of persons a team, a com- pany, a business sector, a nation, etc.. A practitioner needs knowledge
to solve or clarify a “problem” in an identified practice. Before we dis- cuss in 3.3.2 the different types of contribution to a practice that
practice-oriented research can make, we first discuss the concept of a practice 3.3.1.
3.3.1 Practice
We define a practice as the real life situation for which a practitioner has either a formal or an informal responsibility and in which heshe
acts or must act. A practice cannot be defined “objectively” but is defined through and by the perspective of the practitioner a person
or an organization and by how he conceives his duties and responsi- bilities. The idea of practice-oriented research is based on the assump-
tion that practitioners can make use of knowledge about their practice
