Scholarly perspectives on theory construction and empirical research methods

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 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).

Methodological reductionism is the idea that the best scientific strategy is to attempt to reduce explanations to the smallest possible articles. "Methodological reductionism would thus hold that the atomic explanation of a substance's boiling point is preferable to the chemical explanation, and that an explanation based on even smaller particles would be even better. Methodological reductionism, therefore, is the position that all scientific theories either can or should be reduced to a single super-theory through the process of theoretical reduction" (Wimsatt, 2006).

When applying reductionism to the notion of onsite child care centers it can be seen that rewards await the organization that chooses work-site childcare-whether the impetus is immediate benefits or long-term results, to improve overall profitability or create a philanthropic heritage. The decision to nurture children through an enriched, early education program results in employees who work harder and more frequently, and above all, who are loyal to the partnership that makes it achievable. Quality work-site childcare is thought to be good business (On-site childcare brings rewards for all, 2006).

Even though employer-sponsored child care programs have become more common, there is little empirical research on whether these programs affect employees' contentment with child care or their work-life balance, and if effects differ across employee characteristics. In an exploratory study done by Morrissey & Warner, (2011), a survey was given to employees with children at one large university. It was administered in order to collect information on their child care arrangements and experience with their employer's child care voucher program. Contentment with child care varied with worker and child care characteristics, but not with voucher receipt. Families who had preschool children and those using paid home-based have been found to be more satisfied with their child care arrangements than those with school-age children, minority families, and those using center-based care. Nearly half of voucher recipients reported benefits in work-life balance as a result of the voucher. Even though demand-side vouchers appear to be a promising employer advance to address child care issues, these consequences propose that attention must also be given to the arrangement of child care supply as contentment and work-family stress are affected by more things than child care cost only. Childcare provision can be a key factor in employee preservation (Garrett, 2006).

If all costs were the same, the most popular childcare arrangement among full -- and part-time employees would be a center located at the workplace, according to Accountants on Call survey conducted by the Gallup Organization. This survey asked workers, including working parents and employees without children, to select one of five childcare arrangements they most preferred if costs were the same for each choice. Despite on-site childcare's popularity, a 1990 Accountants on Call poll showed that only six percent of surveyed employees who received employer-sponsored childcare benefits had an on-site facility available (Employees prefer on-site childcare, 1993).

According to McIntyre, (2000), those companies that offer on-site daycare generally swear by it and are convinced that it has saved them money, mostly from reduced absenteeism and improved recruitment and retention. But, despite this there is surprisingly little documentation of such savings and meager academic research on the topic. One of the more careful studies of the return on investment for on-site daycare was conducted by Sandra Burud in 1987 for Union Bank in Monterey, California. Burud found a smaller percent of turnover for workers who used the center in its first year of operation, compared to those parents who used other provisions. With the cost of hiring and training new workers anticipated at between three-quarters to one and one-half times a workers annual salary, this reduction accounted for the most significant cost savings. Absenteeism too was affected, with employees using the center missing seven fewer days of work than parents who did not use the center, which also saved the company money. Still another savings were seen in reduced maternity leave. Because the center accommodated infants, Burud found that maternity leaves were shorter for mothers who used the center than for those who did not. And, those who were considering job offers from the bank said that the childcare center would be a part of their decision. In the present era of tight labor markets, such a benefit could be considerable. All in all this study found that the center saved more than it cost.

While the financial result of offering on-site daycare will depend greatly upon the unique situation of a particular company, it is almost certainly safe to conclude that some of those that do not offer on-site daycare could benefit from it.