Exploration of theory Exploration for theory-oriented research

cannot be accepted as “knowledge” and, more importantly, the num- ber and quality of replications of each “proven” proposition must be critically assessed. The literature review will conclude with a list of ■ propositions that need further replication, ■ propositions that have never been tested, and ■ aspects of the object of study about which no proposition has been found. Usually a literature review does not describe the most recent insights in the field because publications lag several years behind actual develop- ments known only to experts who attend conferences and exchange information among them. Such experts usually also know important sources that will not be found in a literature search and they will also have explanations for the presence or absence of certain ideas. In other words, it is necessary not only to conduct “desk research” but also to communicate with insiders. Experts on the theory are usually quite eager to convey their insights to students and to interested colleagues. If this exploration of theory consisting of a literature review as well as communicating with experts has been successful which it usually is, this phase of the research process can be concluded with ■ a description of the current body of knowledge, ■ a list of propositions that have some support but need further testing replication, ■ a list of propositions that have been proposed but not yet tested, ■ a description of aspects of the object of study about which no proposition has yet been formulated, and ■ reasoning about what needs to be done next. The last result is, obviously, the most important. It specifies either a proposition that should be further tested and why this one or a proposition that should be tested for the first time and why this one or an aspect of the object of study about which a new proposition should be built and why.

3.2.5.2 Exploration of practice for finding a proposition

If the conclusion of the exploration of theory is that a new prop- osition should be built, it is usually concluded that theory-building research should be conducted. In our view, however, an exploration of practice should be conducted first before a decision is made to conduct 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”.