Theory Principles of theory-oriented research
The object of study is the stable characteristic in the theory. The object
of study can be very different things, such as activities, processes, events, persons, groups, organizations. If, for example, a theory is developed
about “critical success factors of innovation projects”, then innovation projects is the object of study. This object of study is the characteristic of
the theory that is “stable” – other characteristics are not stable: the values of the concepts vary hence “variables” when operationalized in a specific
study, and the expected relations between concepts, and the domain to which they apply, can change over time because of new insights.
The concepts of the theory are the variable characteristics of the object of
study. The aspect described by a concept can be absent or present, more or less existing, etc. For instance, if the research topic is “critical
success factors of innovation projects” the factors that presumably con- tribute to success are variable characteristics. In each instance of the
object of study, these factors can be present or absent or present to a certain extent. Also, success is a variable characteristic of the object of
study that can be present or absent or present to a certain extent in an instance of the object of study i.e. in one specific innovation project.
Concepts need to be defined precisely to allow for the measurement of their value in instances of the object of study. When we measure the value
of a concept in such instances, we call it a variable. For instance, if we deal with a theory of critical success factors of innovation projects, the concept
“success” needs to be defined such that it is clear what counts as “success” and what does not. Also, the different “factors” need to be defined so that
we can measure the extent to which each factor is present.
Most often, defining concepts involves making assumptions about their meaning. For example, when defining the “success” of innovation
projects, it must be decided whether this is an aspect that “belongs” to the innovation project itself, or that it is an evaluation attributed to it by
stakeholders and, thus, “belonging” to them. Such a decision deter- mines how “success” could be measured in actual instances, e.g. as a
return on investment which could be calculated from financial data or as a personal or institutional judgement. Appendix 1 “Measurement”
contains a more detailed discussion on measurement.
The propositions of a theory formulate causal relations between the variable characteristics concepts of the object of study. A causal rela-
tion is a relation between two variable characteristics A and B of an
object of study in which a value of A or its change permits or results in a value of B or in its change. A proposition does not only state that
there is a causal relation between two concepts but also what type of causal relation is meant. For instance, a success factor could be “neces-
sary” for success, or it could be “sufficient” for success, or the relation
could be probabilistic, meaning that a higher level or extent of that fac- tor results in a higher chance of success, etc. see Chapter 4: “Theory-
testing research”.
The domain of a theory is a specification of the universe of the
instances of the object of study for which the propositions of the theory are believed to be true. The boundaries of the domain should be speci-
fied clearly. For instance, if a researcher develops a theory of critical suc- cess factors of innovation projects, it must be clearly stated whether it is
claimed that the theory is or, eventually, will be proven to be true for all innovation projects, or only for innovation projects of specific types,
or in specific economic sectors, or in specific regions or countries, or in specific time periods, etc. Hence the domain might be very generic
e.g. all innovation projects in all economic sectors in the whole world or quite specific e.g. limited to innovation projects in a specific eco-
nomic sector, in a specific geographical area, or of a specific type.
The propositions of a theory can be visualized by means of a concep- tual model
, i.e. a visual representation of how the concepts of the theory are related to each other. Usually such a model has inputs
independent concepts on the left hand side and outputs depend- ent concepts
” on the right hand side, linked to each other by uni- directional pathways, which are represented by arrows that point to the
dependent concepts. The arrows are indications of the direction of the relations between the concepts. The nature of these arrows needs to be
defined more precisely in the wording of the proposition. Figure 3.1 illustrates this. It represents the basic idea of a conceptual model by
depicting its most simple building block: a relation between two con- cepts. In this figure we only illustrate that concept A “the independ-
ent concept” has an effect on concept B the “dependent concept”.
In this book we consider the independent concept A as the cause of the dependent concept B, which is the effect; so we presume that there
is information or an expectation about the direction between A and B, indicated by the direction of the arrow in the conceptual model. The
arrow represents the assumption that causes precede the effect, which
Figure 3.1
Simplest form of a conceptual model
Independent concept Dependent concept
Concept A Concept B
“depends” on these causes, hence the term “dependent concept”. Causes are assumed to be “independent” from their effects, hence the
term “independent concept”.
Note that the object of study e.g. “innovation project” is not depicted in a conceptual model because the model represents only the
variable characteristics concepts that are linked in the theory, and not the invariable object of study that the theory is about. Nor is the
domain depicted in a conceptual model.
More complicated models might depict relations of the concepts A and B with other concepts C, D, E, etc. For instance, in a conceptual
model of the “critical success factors of innovation projects”, the model would depict a number of different factors A, B, C, D, E, etc. on the
left hand side, “success” on the right hand side, and an arrow originat- ing from each factor pointing to “success”.
Examples of more complex conceptual models are discussed in Box 10 “More complex conceptual models” in Chapter 4.
Box 2 What is a theory, and when is it “true”?
In this book we have a broad view of what counts as a “theory”, but a strict view on when a theory is considered to be “true”. First corresponding to what most people associate
with the word “theory”, a theory can be a set of propositions that together are known as a theory with a specific name, such as “Porter’s theory” or “transaction cost theory”, and
with which a list of publications can be associated. Secondly, a theory could also be a new combination of parts of extant theory and empirical knowledge published in the
scientific literature that is constructed by the researcher in the preparation of a study. Thirdly, a theory could be a well-formulated new theoretical notion, without any refer-
ence to theoretical notions published in the literature, constructed by an individual researcher after exploration of existing knowledge and ideas from the literature as well
as experts. In our view, a theory is a theory if it can be expressed explicitly in terms of these four characteristics:
■
object of study;
■
concepts;
■
relations between concepts propositions;
■
the domain to which the propositions apply. A theory cannot be “proven” to be correct, but the degree of confidence that it is cor-
rect for a specified domain or its generalizability can be enhanced by repeated tests of its propositions in different parts of its domain until eventually a situation occurs in
which researchers do not consider further testing useful. A single “one-shot” study cannot be conclusive.