General research objectives of theory-oriented and practice-oriented research

responsibility, and in which he acts or must act. Members of the business community are the primary users of these research outcomes. Although, as Van de Ven 1989; quoting Lewin famously stated, “Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory”, theory-oriented research and practice- oriented research are at least partially different activities that must be evaluated according to partially different types of criteria see Box 1. Box 1 The difference between practice-oriented and theory-oriented research The difference between practice-oriented and theory-oriented research can be illus- trated with the difference between management practice and management theory. Managers evaluate the success of an intervention in terms of the change that is observ- able in the specific organization. For this evaluation, it is not relevant whether there is a theory that explains the observed success. The specific organization benefits from the intervention and celebrates this success, whether this success is theoretically explained or not. In this context, practice-oriented research is the systematic, methodologically correct, collection and evaluation of observable facts in the organization by which it is proven that “success” occurred as the result of an intervention. The criterion for success of practice-oriented research is thus whether an empirically correct conclusion about a practical object of study is reached such as the conclusion that a specific outcome has been achieved. Theory-oriented research regarding the same intervention in the same organization would have another objective and, therefore, another criterion for success. Its aim would not be to conclude anything about this practice this intervention in this organization but rather to conclude something about a theoretical statement or proposition. The empirical finding that the intervention benefits the organization in this setting if proven in a methodologically correct way would not be evaluated as informative about what to do next in this organization, but only or primarily as a contribution to the robustness and generalizability of a specific theoretical explanation or proposition. That theory, if proven correct in a series of independent tests, might eventually have a practical value e.g. if it can predict in which organizations the intervention will be suc- cessful and why but the success of this particular theory-oriented research project would not be evaluated in terms of its contribution to the specific organization. Practice-oriented research Theory-oriented research Practice-oriented research is Theory-oriented research is research where research where the objective is to the objective is to contribute to theory contribute to the knowledge of one development. Ultimately, the theory or more specified practitioners. may be useful for practice in general. We emphasize the distinction between these two types of research objectives practice- and theory-oriented because not making this dis- tinction explicitly at the beginning of a study in the design phase and in its evaluation at the end of the project, usually results in severe mis- understandings about what was achieved in the study. The clearest examples of such misunderstandings are occasions in which practice- oriented research is criticized for lacking “generalizability” which usu- ally is not a relevant criterion in such cases and occasions in which practical conclusions are inferred from a first test of an interesting theoretical proposition which cannot be considered robust and general- izable before it is tested in a series of replication studies. For theory-oriented research, the general objective of the study can be formulated as follows: The general objective of this study is to contribute to the development of theory regarding topic T {specify the research topic}. For practice-oriented research, the general objective of the research can be formulated as follows: The general objective of this study is to contribute to the knowledge of practitioner P {specify the practitioner by mentioning a name and by referring to the real life context in which this practitioner acts or must act}. These general research objective formulations do not specify which knowledge must be generated in order to make the intended contri- bution. We will discuss in 3.2 and 3.3 how the research objective can be further specified by specifying propositions in theory-oriented research and hypotheses in practice-oriented research. The difference between practice-oriented and theory-oriented research is particu- larly relevant if a theory consists of probabilistic propositions, e.g. a proposition that an intervention with a specific feature has a higher chance of being successful than one without that feature. Such a proposition is still true if some interventions with that fea- ture are not successful. In theory-oriented research we collect and analyse data about multiple interventions with and without the feature in order to establish the correct- ness of the proposition. In practice-oriented research we are only interested in knowing whether or not the feature makes a positive difference in the concrete circumstances of the practice to which the study is oriented. Whether or not the feature makes a differ- ence in other practices and in what direction is not relevant.

3.1.2 Orientation: how to choose between theory-oriented or practice-oriented research

How can one, at the beginning of a research project, make the “right” decision regarding one’s general research objective? Often there is hardly a choice. For example, if the research is commissioned by an organization with the aim of getting recommendations regarding solv- ing a practical problem, then the research is practice-oriented and should be designed as such. On the other hand, if the goal is to advance theoretical knowledge e.g. at universities, then only theory- oriented research might be acceptable. In such cases the research is theory-oriented and should be designed as such. Sometimes researchers or students might be free to choose the one or the other research objective. In this situation, one should reflect about what one wants to achieve with the research project e.g. a thesis project. We recommend that everyone who is at the beginning of a research project but, in particular, those researchers who do not have a clear research objective from the start, conduct an orientation of both the “practice” in which the topic of interest occurs, and the “theory” that is published in the scientific literature on that topic, before making the decision to conduct a practice-oriented or a theory-oriented study. Regarding “theory”, the orientation could entail activities such as: ■ searching the core scientific literature, e.g. by using biblio- graphic databases to identify scientific publications regarding the research topic; ■ identifying suggestions for further research, usually formu- lated in the discussion section of papers; ■ identifying interesting propositions, which were supported in an initial test and need further replication for enhancing their robustness and generalizability; ■ discussions with experts in this theoretical field to check whether the core literature was found as well as whether the “diagnosis” of current knowledge gaps is correct. Regarding “practice”, this orientation could entail activities such as: ■ searching literature on the topic, both in the general media such as newspapers and television and in specialized media such as the managerial, professional, and trade literature; ■ identifying “problems” i.e. issues that practitioners describe as “yet to be solved” or “difficult”, “explanations” i.e. ideas about causes of problems that are formulated by practitioners, and “solutions” i.e. ideas about what can be done about problems; and ■ discussions with practitioners who deal with the chosen topic in practice to identify what knowledge they need in order to act. Would there be interest in research aiming at providing these practitioners with knowledge they need? It is helpful to think about different possible outcomes of a theory- oriented or practice-oriented study, and to judge how valuable specific outcomes would be. A useful tool is to write at least two different fictional press releases about the study results before even having started to design the research, one of them reporting the expected “positive” results and the other reporting very different “negative” results. Would any of these results make any difference to theory or to practice? Is it desirable to get results that contribute to the development of a theory that, in the event, after many more tests, might be “general- izable” to many more situations theory-oriented research, or is it more desirable to contribute to the knowledge of practitioners who will ideally be able to act upon your results practice-oriented research?

3.2 Principles of theory-oriented research

Theory-oriented research aims at contributing to the development of a theory. Although a theory might be used as a basis for advice in prac- tice, what matters only in theory-oriented research is whether the study’s results contribute to one or more steps in the theory develop- ment process, as will be discussed in 3.2.2. Before that we first discuss the characteristics of theory 3.2.1.

3.2.1 Theory

A theory is a set of propositions about an object of study. Each proposition in the theory consists of concepts and specifications of relations between concepts. Such relations are assumed to be true for the object of study defined in the theory and they can, therefore, be seen as predictions of what will happen in instances of the object of study under certain cir- cumstances. The set of instances to which the predictions apply is called the domain i.e. the field to which the predictions can be “gen- eralized”. Therefore, a theory has four characteristics that need to be defined precisely: the object of study, the concepts, the propositions relations between concepts, and the domain.