Childcare and its effects on productivity

Business

Using Gelso (2006), Harlow (2009), Stam, (2007, 2010), Wacker (1999), and five additional peer-reviewed articles from your specialization, discuss scholarly views on the nature and types of theory. Compare and contrast at least three views of what constitutes a theory, including the view you will use in Part 3 of this question. Be sure to distinguish theory from related concepts, such as hypothesis, paradigm, model and concept.

Using Ellis & Levy (2008), Harlow, E. (2009), and five additional peer-reviewed articles, review the scholarly literature on the relationship between theory and research and the ways research (quantitative and qualitative) can contribute to the theory. Discuss at least three ways research can contribute to theory.

Pick a theory (in one of the views of what constitutes a theory that you identified in Part 1) of current interest directly related to the topic area of dissertation. A theory is currently of interest if there are articles published on it in the past five years. Using at least 10 published, peer-reviewed research articles:

1. Explain how the theory adds or may add to our understanding of your field and/or research topic.

2. Discuss and analyse the literature on two areas of controversy or unanswered questions related to the theory.

Part 1

Theory is usually understood as a systematic demonstration of a real problem, expressed as far as possible in mathematical terms in the natural sciences or in the life and social sciences. The methodical nature of theory is usually intended at providing explanatory influence on a problem, describing new features of a phenomenon or providing prognostic utility. The empirical sufficiency required of a theory is a contentious feature of theories and frequently differs fundamentally across disciplines. As most research in the sciences and social sciences is theory driven, that is, is concerned with the modification or refutation of theoretical claims, the design of that research will have an immediate impact on the nature of theory construction and the presumed relationship among theory construction, observation, and the outcome of empirical research (Stam, 2010).

By definition, theory must have four basic elements: conceptual definitions, domain limitations, relationship-building, and predictions. Theory-building is significant because it provides a framework for analysis, facilitates the competent development of the field, and is needed for the applicability to practical real word troubles. To be good theory, a theory must follow the criteria for good theory that includes individuality, thriftiness, management, generalizability, fruitfulness, internal reliability, empirical riskiness, and abstraction which apply to all research methods. Theory-building research seeks to find comparisons across many different domains to augment its abstraction level and its significance. The procedure for good theory-building research follows the definition of theory as it defines the variables, specifies the domain, builds internally consistent relationships, and makes specific predictions (Wacker, 1998).

According to Weick, (1995), outcomes of the theorizing course rarely come out as complete a theory, which means that most of what passes for theory in organizational studies is made up of estimates. Even though these estimates differ in their generalization, very few of them take the appearance of strong theory, and most of them are really just texts instead of tough theories. These alternatives for theory may result from lethargic theorizing in which people try to splice theory on top of miserable sets of data. But they may also symbolize momentary efforts in which people deliberately move toward stronger theories. The consequences of lethargy and intense struggles may look the same and may consist of references, data, lists, diagrams, and hypotheses. But to label these things theory makes no sense if the difficulty is laziness and ineffectiveness.

There is a thoughtful and predictable connection between theory and research. The thinking is that science would be poor if either were to be relegated to the back seat. Both theory and research are fundamental and necessary elements of science as science without controlled, empirical research would be made up of only untried ideas and biases, and it would be hard even to think of the result as scientific (Gelso, 2006). At the same time, science without theory would consist of an array of disconnected observations rather than meaningful understandings of the psychological world summarize what is believed to be a useful way of thinking about theory. Its definition, its elements, and just what constitutes good scientific theory / examine how theory and research are used in science, how each draws on the other, and how they are reciprocally related to each other.

In contrast to quantitative research, which aims to generate numerical endings based on statistically significant data, a crucial involvement of case studies is the affirmation or development of theory. The term theory does not have a set, general meaning. When looking at the competing research paradigms, the word suggests various meanings. The term theory often suggests a determining law, or system of laws, as in the natural sciences, or a construct or set of constructs for ordering and understanding phenomena. Irrespective of the dissimilar principles informing the term, theory typically has a central role in case study research. In all but descriptive case studies, the basic purpose concerns theory. Case studies either test a particular theory, develop theory, or both. It has been disputed that developing theory unavoidably involves an aspect of testing and thus the two are connected. It is by means of this process that a theoretical input might be made (Harlow, 2009).

Stam, (2007), says that there are three influential outlooks of theory that have been common in the twentieth century include: (a) reducible to observables, (b) used as instruments to do things in the world, or (c) statements about things that really exist. Reductionism, instrumentalism, and realism, as the most prominent theories about theories in science and have considerable influence on philosophers' attempts to explain how it is that scientists generate theories that are true or useful or predictive of the world

Reductionism refers to the practice of dividing the whole into its parts, and then studying them independently. Reductionism is also the inclination to reduce the complex to the simple. Holism, on the other hand, refers to the study of the whole with no division. Universal thinking is consequently a holistic conception. In Western culture, people have been conditioned to think in a reductionistic and linear way. Nevertheless, when people come upon the idea of systems, their reductionistic blurring tends to be substituted by a holistic blurring, one that is only able to see the whole. Therefore, people tend to oscillate between one extreme and the other (Wood & Caldas, 2001).

In the reductionistic mode there is a prospective to decrease the drive for organizational transformation. At worst, it may submerge the organization in a blinded change process, in which the impact is often ignored. In the business field there are regularly negative effects in regards to the implementation of change, such as the loss of strategic functions, lack of flexibility of management and organization models. Indeed, those features are in the very core of the competitive position of organizations, and are crucial in any coherent organizational transformation move (Wood & Caldas, 2001).

According to Caldwell, (1980), instrumentalism is often seen as a strategy, the preferred or chosen means whereby the aims and objectives of an organization are achieved (Davies, 2008). Instrumentalists claim that theories are best viewed as nothing more than instruments. So viewed, theories are neither true nor false, but only more or less adequate, given a particular problem. Within the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is much more than a response to the problem of induction. It is, in reality, one side in the debate over the ontological status of the entities referred to by theories and theoretical terms. In that debate, instrumentalism is contrasted with realism. Realists claim that theories and theoretical terms should make real references, while instrumentalists deny that

Business process change often relies expansively on the workforce for successful integration within the workplace. Still, even though business process change is understood to initiate political, ethical and technical contingencies into the workplace, management often remains focused on the tangibles of technology and the technique of process to the exclusion of the intangibles of ethics or the politics of change (Chapter 7 Decomposition by instrumental instruction, n.d.).

Part 2

A researcher venture might best be viewed as an arrangement that integrates a number of distinct but related parts including the research problem that drives the study, the goals, and research questions, review of the literature, methodology, results and conclusions. The research problem serves as the starting point for the research and is a uniting thread that runs throughout all the elements of the research venture (Ellis & Levy, 2008).

Today's world increases the need for useful research. A lot of companies struggle with new and poorly understood troubles as they adjust to rapidly changing environments. They put into place essential and rapid change in their forms and in their relationships to their workers. New technological abilities have allowed new competitive environments that are demanding new organizational forms. As organizations implement new approaches to organizing, organizational science has regularly lagged behind practice. Researchers have an occasion to further organizational science and to make research practical by producing information that can impact changing organizational forms and circumstances. Pragmatically, academic researchers are not likely to get access to a company that is going through change unless the practitioners believe the research will be helpful (Gibson & Mohrman, 2001).

There have been a number of calls to augment the significance and effectiveness of organizational science to companies. The usefulness challenge cannot be defined merely as getting practitioners to value and include what academics learn. It is believed that the usefulness of research depends, somewhat, on the degree to which the perspectives of organization members are incorporated in research procedures and the results are included into those members' organization design activities that take place as their company adjusts to its changing environment. Research is more likely to be seen as useful if there are occasions for researchers and members to take each others' perspectives and to mutually participate in interpreting the results of the research (Gibson & Mohrman, 2001).

The research experience shows that practical informed subjective judgement based on an intellectual assessment of the existing body of theory is a necessary part of business research practice. Yet, the problem remains to convince others, particularly those less familiar with practice, that this is the case. Some experts suggest that a lack of competitiveness is a rather simple problem, solvable by filling the gaps in a promising group. This demeans the difficulties with which practice is complete and which necessitate considerable judgement and reflection. Clearly defining in a meticulous and objective way the relationships in a model is prerequisite to any scientific test of its validity (Business research as an educational problem-solving heuristic - the case of porters diamond, 1999).

According to Nuttall, Shankar & Beverland, (2011), one of the main reasons that people do qualitative research is to become more knowledgeable about a subject in which they are interested in. Too often in applied social research, particularly in economics and psychology, graduate students jump from doing a literature review on a topic of interest to writing a research proposal complete with theories and hypotheses based on present thinking. What gets overlooked is the direct experience of the subject. One should be required to spend some time experiencing the subject that they one to research, before they start a study. For example, before doing that multivariate analysis of gender-based differences in wages, one should go observe several work contexts and see how gender tends to be perceived and seems to affect wage allotments. Before looking at the effects of a new psychotropic drug for the mentally ill, one should spend some time visiting several mental health treatment facilities in order to see what goes on. If a person does this, they are likely to approach the existing literature on the topic with a new perspective because of their direct experience. They're likely to begin to devise their own ideas about what causes something else to take place. This is where most of the more appealing and valuable new theories and hypotheses come from. Qualitative research needs to be used as the basis for direct experience, but one also needs to know when and how to move on to devise some provisional theories and hypotheses that can be unequivocally tested.

Qualitative research has special value for looking at complex and sensitive issues. For instance, if one is interested in how people view topics like God and religion, human sexuality, the death penalty or gun control, it would be hard to develop a quantitative methodology that would do anything more than sum up a few key positions on these issues. While this type of research is done all the time, if one really wants to try to attain a deep understanding of how people think about these topics, some type of in-depth interviewing is probably the best way to go (Nuttall, Shankar & Beverland, 2011).

Quantitative research design, on the other hand, is an excellent way of confirming results and proving or disproving a hypothesis. The makeup has not changed for years, so it is standard across many scientific fields and disciplines. After statistical analysis of the results, a complete answer can be reached, and the results can be rightfully discussed and published. Quantitative experiments also filter out outside factors, if properly designed, and so the results attained can be seen as real and impartial. Quantitative experiments are functional for testing the results attained by a series of qualitative experiments, leading to a concluding answer, and a narrowing down of probable directions for follow up research to take (Nelder, 2011).

Researchers in a lot of disciplines develop theory by making frequent observations over time, and generating a construct that can be used to become familiar with an idea at a very high level, and comprehend the underlying intricacy. Theories add to a part of research discourse where researchers put forward new work to broaden, refine or refute the work of others. Theories also develop when researchers consolidate many small theories into a larger one. Theories can be promising, suggesting a research agenda for further modification; intermediate, where constructs that are formed needs to be tested; and mature, where a theory is very well recognized, suggesting that no new confirmation is likely to alter the clarification (Edmondson & McManus, 2007).

The prospective to make theoretical contributions is a particular strength of case study research. In a new and uncharted area, contributions can be innovative. In established areas, contributions are more likely to be incremental developments of the work of preceding theorists. New empirical evidence from case study research can provide theoretical insights that can corroborate or challenge existing theory. In this way theoretical contributions, which have to be valued in terms of the competing research paradigms, develop the knowledge base of a number of disciplines (Harlow, 2009).

Part 3

Reductionism is the action of taking statements of one sort, that is, statements characterizing a phenomenon or practice in a certain language, and transposing or translating these to statements of another sort where the latter are taken to be feature of a simpler, clearer or perhaps more precise or more widely documented or recognizable language. Thus, when one reduces statements of the sort there is a relationship between the unbalanced force applied to an object and resultant hastening of that object (Stam, 2007).

Reductionism refers to the practice of dividing the whole into its parts, and then looking at them separately. Reductionism is also the tendency to reduce the complex to the simple (Wood & Caldas, 2001). Problems, in the reductionist approach, are solved scientifically. Key parts or assumptions are identified, data about the part is collected, data is analysed, hypothesis's are proposed and tested, results are evaluated and conclusions are made. This method is based on four principles: first, everything can be separated into its component parts. Second, any of those parts can be substituted for. Third, the solution of the partial problem can solve the whole problem. Fourth, the entire thing is nothing more than the sum of its parts (Nadler, 2004).

Although most use reductionism to solve problems there are some that don't feel it is the best approach. According to Nadler, (2004), a person can not resolve problems creatively by simply using the time-honored but unimaginative reductionist approach of patterning new solutions on past successes. Research shows that leading solution creators use an intuitive, holistic method that can be described as a smart questions approach. This enormous number of people using the conventional problem-solving approach is a cause of the unproductive and fruitless results that so frequently occur. Many wonder how this could happen, how so many people could be using unproductive methods. The major reason is that they are taught and almost all organizations use reductionism to solve troubles

Problem solving is slanting toward the past. It aims to examine what existed in the past, and pinpoint whatever is wrong with that. It seeks a single solution within a fix-it mentality. Every now and then, someone will think outside the box, but this is largely to no avail. Once the problem is solved, the problem solver moves on to the next problem. Problem solving is fact-oriented, cold, rational, and impersonal. Creating solutions is oriented toward the future. It aims to recognize situations in terms of where people want to be years from now before deciding what to do today. It identifies that problems exist in time and so solutions must be living solutions, ones that are adaptable, flexible, and ready to adapt as needs change. Solution formation is innovative as well as people-centered, warm, fluid, and effective. Reductionist thinking is exactly what causes so many fads to take place in the problem-solving and organizational change fields, such as re-engineering, total quality, empowerment and team building. An idea that works in one company often takes root and spreads like wildfire among other corporations and businesses, which believe that they can reuse the same solution for themselves. In the end these initiatives all eventually fail and disappear (Nadler, 2004).

Reductionism strongly mirrors a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained entirely in terms of relationships between other more fundamental phenomena are called epiphenomena. Frequently there is a proposition that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it. Reductionism does not stop the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena, but it does imply the capability to comprehend those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are made. This reductionist understanding is very unlike that which is usually implied by the term emergence, which normally contends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it comes (Link, 2000).