This paper examines the critical role of theory in formulating and supporting research hypotheses, drawing on Kerlinger and Lee's framework. It discusses how researchers should access existing theory through published work and peer dialogue, distinguish between theory and empirical results, and position theory as a foundation rather than the focus of study. The paper emphasizes that multiple theories can reveal new insights into phenomena, and that theory's importance shifts across research stages—paramount during initial investigation but subordinate during hypothesis testing. The paper concludes that theory serves primarily to establish research credibility and enable the discovery of new conclusions beyond existing knowledge.
According to Kerlinger and Lee, the role of theory is a vital part of building a sound hypothesis in a paper. The positioning of existing theory in this effort takes two basic shapes. First, it is important to access and utilize existing theory via prior published work that relates to the investigation. Second, it is also important to recognize the role of other researchers who have utilized the theory or theories in question in their research.
Conversations and debates with researchers can assist the process of not only understanding the theory, but also utilizing it effectively in terms of creating and supporting the proposed hypotheses. Engaging with scholarly discourse helps researchers move beyond passive reading of published theory to active engagement with how theory functions in practice.
When investigating prior research, it is also important to distinguish between the theories being used and the empirical results achieved by utilizing the theories. The researcher should not mistake the results for the theory itself, but instead cultivate an understanding of the theory by examining the results. The results are what strengthen or disprove the theory. A strengthened theory will then be the ideal component for research and for proving hypotheses.
This distinction is crucial because empirical results serve as the test of theoretical claims, not as synonymous with theory itself. Understanding this relationship allows researchers to build on validated theory rather than accepting unexamined claims.
At the same time, the authors warn that it is also important to not let the ideas of others overwhelm the hypotheses being proposed. In other words, addressing and explaining the theories and works of others relative to one's own should not overwhelm explaining the importance of the current study. While theory should therefore be positioned as a foundation of the current study, this should be its main recognized role. It exists to provide support for the work being done and not as the focus of the study.
This balance is essential in academic writing: theory provides legitimacy and context, but the original research question and investigation should remain central to the paper's narrative and contribution.
Multiple theories also provide an important mechanism for supporting the relevance and importance of the hypotheses being proposed. A combination of theories, for example, can provide new insight into an existing phenomenon, making it worthy of the investigator's attention. The combination can also suggest new phenomena that have not been considered prior to the particular combination explained by the researcher (Sparrow and Mayer).
Theoretical frameworks built from multiple perspectives offer researchers the opportunity to identify gaps and generate novel research questions that single-theory approaches might miss.
"Theory's necessity in empirical and numerical research"
"How theory's role shifts from investigation through hypothesis testing"
While theory is therefore an important component at the beginning of an empirical study, its use throughout the study evolves in order to serve as a foundation for proving new hypotheses and potentially constructing new theories. Its main role is to provide a foundation for further empirical work and the evolution of studying the world and its many components.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.