1

Exploring the Operationalization Phase of Theory Building from Three Different Perspectives

Greg G. Wang Review and comply Refereed Research th Roundtable with APA 6 edition The University of Texas at Tyler guidelines prior to ~SAMPLE PAPER~ submitting your final Russell F. Korte

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Keywords: theory-building, operationalization, application of theory, theory testing

In applied theory building research, a central mission is to conduct research that both advances an academic discipline and enlightens practice in a professional domain (Van de Ven,

2007). Therefore, a goal of theory building research in HRD is to advance the knowledge of HRD and contribute to the practice of HRD (Storberg-Walker, 2003). Recent increased effort in HRD theory building methodology research reinforces and typifies HRD as a discipline moving toward this direction (Lynham, 2002; Storberg-Walker, 2003, 2007; Torraco, 2002; Wang & Swanson,

2008).

A number of studies have proposed theory building research methods in social sciences and organizational settings (Dubin, 1978, 1983; Lynham, 2002; Van de Ven, 2007; Weick, 1995). In general, all theory building methods follow three key phases of theory development. They are (1) conceptual development, (2) operationalization, and (3) application or testing. A number of recent studies have discussed the first phase, conceptual development (Storberg-Walker, 2007).

However, very little literature was found addressing the operationalization and application phases of theory development. This research round table is an initial effort to fill that gap Copyright © 2010 Greg G. Wang & Russell F. Korte Problem Statement and Research Questions 2

The dearth of literature on the operationalization and application of theory may not only impede HRD theory development research, but also reduce the utility of theory for practice. The literature on theory building has demonstrated that all “good” theory in applied areas must

eventually operationalize and apply or test the conceptual framework of a theory, although

different theory building models have different preferences to naming the phases. For instance,

Dubin (1983) termed it as deriving empirical indicators and testable hypotheses, Lynham (2002)

named it “operationalization,” whereas Van de Ven (2007) called it “hypotheses at an operational

level of concreteness,” and Weick (1995) included it as part of his notion of “thought trials.” Van

de Ven further explained that operationalization includes “developing specific hypotheses and

empirical observation procedures (based on the theoretical model) that predict what data should be

obtained if the model provides a good fit to the real world” (2007, p. 21).

The primary research question addressed by this Research Roundtable is two-fold: How can

researchers operationalize and apply or test theory in HRD? Secondary questions ask: What

procedures help operationalize theoretical propositions into applicable or testable hypotheses? And

what are different perspectives on theory operationalization and application or testing?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study is more methodological informed by different perspectives (functionalist, interpretivist, and critical theorist [cf. Goia & Pitre, 1990]). This study

considers the differences in operationalization, application, and testing from the funtionalist,

interpretive, and critical perspectives. Briefly, it is expected that the process and outcomes of the

operationalization, application, and testing phases will proceed differently and produce different 3

outcomes depending on the perspective of the researcher. For example, the functionalist

perspective is closest to the traditional scientific method and has codified rather specific procedures and standards for operationalizing and testing theory. The goal of this approach is to deduce empirical and measurable variables from universal laws and concepts. This approach assumes an objective reality governed by universal laws and propositions that can be operationalized somewhat rationally. However, in a study of the literature in the management sciences, Bartunek (2007) found a huge gap in the implications of theory for practice.

The interpretive perspective takes a grounded theory or constructivist approach to operationalizing and testing—inducing more general propositions and patterns from empirical data.

In essence, this approach begins with operationalized variables and builds the theory from there.

The critical perspective takes an evaluative and action-oriented approach by directing operationalization toward specified goals of creating a new awareness of conditions as a means for change (Goia & Pitre, 1990). These approaches address three important goals of theory in an applied field such as HRD—general propositions, empirical data, and change.

Contributions to Human Resource Development

While conceptual development is critical for theory development, testing and application make theory useful in the field. Thus, operationalizating a theory is the link between concepts and action (Lynham, 2002), as well as between action and concepts. Rigorously linking actions to conceptual development increases the strength of the knowledge base and raises the professionalization of the field (Chalofsky, 1996). 4

Recently, Van de Ven (2007) defined operationalization as creating a model to “make

operational some specific predictions of a theory, which can be subjected to empirical inspection”

(p. 21). Operationalization and application mean to derive testable and actionable hypotheses

based on theory by reasoning or inquiry. Operationalization and application also serve as ways to

evaluate, assess, and refine theories building the intellectual foundation of a field. Overall, this

roundtable session will contribute to HRD by examining the process of operationalization that

translates theoretical concepts into observable and actionable elements. The outcomes of this

session will begin to identify and clarify the links between theory as conceptual construct and Review the APA 6th theory as action guiding the practice of professionals in the field. edition for changes in crediting sources (pp. References 169-224). This reference list has NOT Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.been updated Academy to reflect of the significant changes Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. in reference guidelines.

Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant

research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal,

50(6), 1323-1333.

Chalofsky, N. (1996). Professionalism comes from theory and research: The why instead of the

how to. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 72, 51-56.

Cohen, B. (1991). Developing sociological knowledge: Theory and method. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.

Dubin, R. (1983). Theory building in applied areas. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology (pp. 17-39). New York: Wiley. 5

Goia, D. A.. & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of

Management Review, 15(4), 584-602.

Lynham, S. (2002) The general method of applied theory building research, Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 4(3), 221 – 41.

Storberg-Walker, J. (2007). Understanding the conceptual development phase of applied

theory-building research: A grounded approach. Human Resource Development Quarterly,

18(1), 63-90.

Storberg-Walker, J. (2003). Comparison of the Dubin, Lynham, and Van de Ven theory-Building

Research Methods and Implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 2(2),

211-222.

Torraco, R. J. (2002). Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: a comparative

analysis, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 355 – 76.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007) Engaged Scholarship: Creating Knowledge for Science and Practice.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Wang, G. G.. & Swanson, R. A. The idea of NHRD: An analysis based on economics and theory

development methodology. Human Resource Development Review, 7(1), 79-106.

Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),

385-390.