Theory Building for Hypothesis Testing by Takasago Band

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar

Copyright © Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar, 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in 2009 by Response Books Business books from SAGE B1/I-1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044, India SAGE Publications Inc 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320, USA SAGE Publications Ltd 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd 33 Pekin Street #02-01 Far East Square Singapore 048763 Published by Vivek Mehra for SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, typeset in 10/12pt Minion by Star Compugraphics Private Limited, Delhi and printed at Chaman Enterprises, New Delhi. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pawar, Badrinarayan Shankar, 1962– Theory building for hypothesis specification in organizational studies / Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Organizational sociology—Research—Methodology. 2. Organizational behavior—Research—Methodology. 3. Hypothesis. I. Title. HM786.P38

302.3'501—dc22

2009

2009039545

ISBN: 978-81-321-0244-1 (HB) The SAGE Team: Reema Singhal, Anupam Choudhury and Trinankur Banerjee All the figures used in the book have been created by the author.

Dedication This book is dedicated, with apologies and with prayers for forgiveness, to all those who suffered because of me and, with gratitude, to those who nourished, taught, and helped me. In particular, the author dedicates this book to, among others who cannot be identified, his teachers, the families of his brothers and sister, his late father and his mother, and his Guruji (spiritual mentor).

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

About the Author

Badrinarayan Shankar Pawar is Professor, Organisational Behavior and Human Resources, at the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode. He has taught at various institutes including Oklahoma State University (mostly as a teaching associate during his PhD studies), City University of Hong Kong (1997–2001), Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India (2001–2005), and XLRI School of Business and Human Resources (2007–2008). He has taught various subjects including human resource management, organizational behavior-related subjects, business research methods, research methods, and advanced research methods. Dr Pawar received his PhD from Oklahoma State University in 1996. He also received the membership of Phi Kappa Phi in recognition of his academic performance in the PhD program. His coauthored/solo academic works include papers published in Academy of Management Review, Long Range Planning, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Best Papers Proceedings of the Academy of Management, a chapter in Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (2005, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.), and paper presentations at the Academy of Management. He has also served as the guest editor for a special issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management on Transformational Leadership (2004, Volume 17[2]). His recent work on the topic of workplace spirituality includes one paper published in the Leadership and Organization Development Journal in 2008 and another paper published in Journal of Business Ethics in 2009. His areas of research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, transformational leadership, and workplace spirituality.

viii

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

Contents

About the Author List of Figures Preface Acknowledgments 1. An Introduction to Theory Building and This Book z z z

A Brief Introduction to Theory Why are Theory and Theory Building Required Need for Theory-building Inputs: The Relevance of This Book Focus and Approach of This Book Focus on Organizational Studies Area Focus on Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification Focus on Logical Positivism Source of Book Contents

Summary

2. Theory in the Broader Context of Reality, Knowledge, Science, and Research z

vii xiii xv xix 1 1 5 7 9 9 10 11 12 12

Theory in the Context of Reality and Knowledge Actual Reality Knowledge Presumed Reality Theory in the Context of Science and Research Science and Theory Research and Theory Paradigms, Actual Reality, and Theory

14 15 16 17 20 20 22 23

Summary

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

3. Theory: What It Is and Its Role in Research z

What Is a Theory? A Representation of Reality A Set of Generalized Statements A Set of Interrelated Statements An Abstract Representation of Reality

A Few Definitions and Descriptions of a Theory Role of Theory

Role of Theory in Simplifying and Ordering the Representation of Empirical World Role of Theory in Facilitating Explanation and Prediction Goals of Science Role of Theory in Bridging Conceptual and Empirical Research Role of Theory in Facilitating Economy in Empirical Verification Role of Theory in Pointing to the Areas for Advancement of Science Summary

4. Units of Theory z z

Unit One of a Theory: Domain Unit Two of a Theory: Concepts First Category of Terms Second Category of Terms Third Category of Terms Fourth Category of Terms Definitions and Descriptions of a Concept Concepts and Constructs Role of Concepts in Theory Building Abstractness of a Concept and Its Implications

z z z z z z

Unit Three of a Theory: Variables Unit Four of a Theory: Definitional Statements Unit Five of a Theory: Premises Unit Six of a Theory: Propositions Unit Seven of a Theory: Hypotheses Summary

25 25 25 26 26 27 28 30 30 30 32 33 34 34 36 36 40 42 42 43 43 44 45 46 50 51 53 54 56 57 61

Contents

5. Some Aspects of the Process of Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification z

Deciding on the Aspects of the Reality to be Represented and the Domain Concept Specification and Specification of Definitional Statements Other Approaches to Concept Specification Typology as an Approach to Concept Specification Ideal Types and Related Approaches to Concept Specification Configurations as an Approach to Concept Specification

z z

Specification of Premises in a Theory Specification of Propositions and Hypotheses Place of Logic and Reasoning in Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification Logical Arguments Additional Hypothetical Examples of Logical Reasoning for Hypothesis Specification

Summary

6. Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification: Observations and Examples from Published Research z

A Few Observations about and Examples from Published Research 1. Simple Argument: Premises Mostly Based on Definitions and Assumptions 2. Simple Argument: Based on an Existing Model 3. Simple Argument: Based on Definitions, an Existing Model, and a General Law 4. Simple Argument: Based on the Existing Conceptual Literature and Empirical Findings 5. Complex Argument: Based on the Existing Conceptual Literature and Empirical Findings 6. Complex Argument: Based on Multiple Models 7. Complex Argument: Based on a Model and General Laws

z z

Some Comments on the Observations Summary

64 64 66 70 70 73 74 75 78 79 80 90 96

97 98 99 100 101 101 103 104 104 105 106

xii

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

7. Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification: Some Extensions z

Theory Building for Specifying More Complex Hypotheses: Mediation and Moderation 109 Theory Building for Specifying a Hypothesis Involving Mediation Theory Building for Specifying a Hypothesis Involving Moderation

z z z

109

Extending Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification to Theory Building for Developing More Comprehensive Models Extending Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification to Theory Building for Specifying Simple Theories Some Other Inputs on and Approaches to Theory Building Assessment of Goodness of Theory Building and Theories Placing Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification in the Larger Process Summary

References Author Index Subject Index

109 113

116 116 118 120 121 122 123 127 129

List of Figures

1.1 A Part of Theory of Employee Behaviors 1.2 A Perspective of Research Process

2 6

4.1 A Possible Set of Interrelationships between Various Units of a Theory

5.1 A Hypothetical Example of a Typology of Different Employee Types

7.1 A Mediator Variable 7.2 A Moderator Variable 7.3 A Hypothetical Example of a Theoretical Model

110 114 117

xiv

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

Preface

What This Book Is About

his book seeks to describe various aspects of theory building for hypothesis specification in organizational studies. It is based on various sources including my study of some of the literature on various aspects of theory building, my training in research methods, my teaching of theory building in my research methods courses for research degree program students, and my observation of the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification as reflected in the published papers in academic journals. This book is not about theory-building process associated with the specification of grand theories. Rather it is about doing theory building for specifying hypotheses, which can be taken up for subsequent empirical examination. Thus, its scope is narrower than the focus of works that may address theory building for developing grand theories or theories in general. However, in the last chapter, the book outlines how the approach for theory building for hypothesis specification contained in it can be extended to specify simple theories that focus on a narrowscoped phenomenon.

Why This Book Is Needed My observation is that there is no book available that can comprehensively guide research degree program students in the actual procedure of theory building for hypothesis specification as required in routine research. My prayer is that this book can provide some of the relevant inputs to address this requirement of research degree program students. This book may also provide some relevant inputs to other researchers who seek to

xvi

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

do academic research or have been doing academic research but have not been trained in the area of theory building.

The Approach of this Book Some of the features of this book are as follows. First, this book is grounded in the literature that is mostly of international origin. Several papers cited and used come from academically respected international journals. Second, the literature base covered includes a reasonably long period and both old and contemporary works. Third, the approach to theory building outlined by me in this book reflects inputs from various sources, such as views contained in the literature related to theory building and practice of theory building for hypothesis specification in the papers published in academic journals. Fourth, this book provides an exposure to both the contents of theory as well as the process of theory building for hypothesis specification. Fifth, it outlines a procedure for theory building for hypothesis specification and also provides illustrations of the procedure. The illustration is done in two ways—by using one hypothetical example through most of book and by describing and analyzing several examples of theory building for hypothesis specification from papers published in academic journals. Sixth, the descriptions and illustrations of the procedure for theory building for hypothesis specification are provided after describing other basic aspects of theory. Thus, the description and illustration of the theory-building procedure is preceded by the description of what a theory is, what the units or components of a theory are, and the role of a theory in the larger context of reality, knowledge, science, and research. This feature of the book may help the reader to see the detailed procedure of theory building for hypothesis specification and to also see the larger context of knowledge generation process (for example, science and research) in which this detailed procedure constitutes only one part.

Structure of this Book’s Contents This book contains seven chapters. Chapter 1 is titled “An Introduction to Theory Building and this Book.” It provides a brief introduction to

Preface

xvii

theory, outlines why theory and theory building is required. It also outlines the relevance, approach, and focus of this book. Chapter 2 is titled “Theory in the Broader Context of Reality, Knowledge, Science, and Research.” It places theory in the larger process of research and science. Chapter 3 is titled “Theory: What it is and its Role in Research.” It describes theory in various ways by referring to its purpose and features, and indicates how these descriptions are consistent with some of the definitions and descriptions of theory in the existing literature. It also outlines various roles of theories including simplification of the representation of the empirical world, facilitation of explanation and prediction goals of science, facilitation of a connection between conceptual and empirical research, facilitation of economy in empirical research, and facilitation of the identification of areas of advancement for science. Chapter 4 is titled “Units of Theory.” It outlines what a theory contains. Seven units or components of theory outlined in this chapter are: (i) domain, (ii) concepts, (iii) variables, (iv) definitional statements, (v) premises, (vi) propositions, and (vii) hypotheses. Chapter 5 is titled “Some Aspects of the Process of Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification.” It outlines the steps involved in the process of theory building for hypothesis specification. In particular, it describes some aspects associated with logical reasoning process involved in specifying hypotheses from premises. It uses a few hypothetical examples to illustrate the process of logical argument specification part of theory building for hypothesis specification. How reasoning process is applied to a set of premises is illustrated through these examples. Chapter 6 is titled “Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification: Observations and Examples from Published Research.” It outlines some categories, which I have used to describe some of my observations of the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification in published papers from academic journals to illustrate through them some of the aspects of the process of theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in chapter 6. There is some variety in the theorybuilding process associated with the categories included in this chapter. Chapter 7 is titled “Theory Building for Hypothesis Specification: Some Extensions.” It outlines how theory building for hypothesis specification described in the preceding parts of the book can be extended to specify hypotheses involving mediation and moderation, which are two of the ways of developing more complex and explanatory theoretical models of a phenomenon. In describing this extension also, hypothetical examples and examples from published literature are used as illustrations. This chapter also outlines how theory building for hypothesis specification

xviii

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

outlined in this book can be extended to specify more comprehensive theoretical models and to specify simple theories. Here, theory building for hypothesis specification, which may typically form one of the parts of an empirical paper, is extended to outlining theory-building process for specifying a theory (which by itself could constitute a conceptual research paper). This chapter subsequently outlines some other inputs on and approaches to theory building by drawing on some literature. It finally places theory building for hypothesis specification in the larger process of research and links it to other activities, such as literature review, that are likely to be associated with it.

Contents

xix

Acknowledgments

he author gratefully acknowledges debt to various scholars from whose work understanding has been used, with appropriate acknowledgment and citation, in various parts of the book. The author also gratefully acknowledges debt to the authors, publishers, and copyright owners of various documents such as journal articles and books from where understanding, content, and text have been used, with appropriate acknowledgments and citations, at various places in the book. The author also acknowledges his debt to XLRI School of Business and Human Resources where some part of the work on this book was completed and to the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, where the later part of the work on this book was completed. The author is grateful to his students in Research Methods courses as teaching that course over a number of years has provided some of the inputs that facilitated his work on this book. The author is grateful to all those who have helped him to consider doing this work and to actually complete this work. In particular, the goodness received from various individuals—Dr Eastman, Dr Meinhart Dr Stone, Dr Barr, Professor Khandwalla, Professor Monippally, Professor Vijaya, Professor Bannerjee, and Professor Krishnamoorthy—is gratefully acknowledged. The blessings of Gurudevji are gratefully acknowledged. Finally, support, help, tolerance, acceptance, and kindness provided by the families of my brothers and sister—Dattatraya and Tulsa, Ashok and Indulekha, Parshuram and Rajani—and my mother is gratefully acknowledged.

An IntroducƟon to Theory Building and This Book

he chapter provides a brief introduction to what a theory is and to this book. It contains three parts. The first part describes the place of a “theory” in relation to the terms “reality,” “knowledge,” “research,” and “science.” The second part describes the relevance of this book by outlining the need for inputs to facilitate the research activity of building theory for hypothesis setting. The third part of the chapter describes some of the features of this book’s approach (for example, focus on theory building for hypothesis specification and positivistic orientation). This chapter can aid readers to see the relevance of this book and to understand how inputs in this book may help them in the research process. It can thus help readers to understand the utility of this book in the research process and prepare readers to be receptive to inputs that follow in the subsequent parts of the book.

A Brief IntroducƟon to Theory A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. Various views on what a theory is reflect this description of a theory. For instance, Bacharach (1989: 496) notes that a theory uses language to provide and communicate an orderly representation of a real-world phenomenon. Bacharach (1989: 496) further notes that a theory provides a representation of a real phenomenon is such a manner that one views the real phenomenon in the form of its representation and does not get overwhelmed by the entire complexity of the real phenomenon.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Dubin (1976: 26) notes that in a theory, a researcher is trying to provide a representation of just some of the aspects of a real-world phenomenon. Dubin (1976: 26) also notes that only a part of the real-world phenomenon is represented in a theory. These descriptions suggest several aspects. First, the descriptions suggest that a theory is a human effort to provide a representation, through the use of human language, of the reality. Second, the representation is used to provide an orderly depiction of some phenomenon in the real world in a manner that some complexity of the real phenomenon is reduced in the representation. Third, because the theory seeks to represent only some part of the real-world phenomenon, a theory has its own scope and boundary conditions (Bacharach, 1989; Dubin, 1976; Whetten, 1989). These descriptions support the view that a theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. In this book, consistent with Dubin (1976: 28) and Whetten (1989), no distinction is made between terms “theory” and “model.” Further, in line with Dubin (1976: 28), the terms “theory,” “theoretical model,” and “model” are used interchangeably. Consider the following example of a theory as a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality (Figure 1.1). FIGURE 1.1 A Part of Theory of Employee Behaviors

Figure 1.1 provides a simplified representation of a limited part of employees’ behaviors in organizations. It focuses on only two forms of behaviors—positive behaviors and negative behaviors—leaving aside various other employee behaviors such as on-the-job performance, absenteeism, punctuality, and destructive behaviors. Further, it simplifies that limited part of employee behaviors by seeking to explain it through only one work-attitude of employees—organizational commitment. In this

IntroducƟon

sense, Figure 1.1 constitutes a part of the theory of employee behaviors in organizations. Often, such figures are called theoretical models. Here it is referred to as a “part” of a theory because the diagram per se is not a theory (Sutton and Staw, 1995) as other aspects of theory such as concept definitions, assumptions, and explanations through reasoning (Bacharach, 1989; Sutton and Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989) are not included in the figure. These other parts of theory will be discussed in the subsequent parts of this book and the readers need not get distracted by them at this point beyond noting that there are other parts of a theory beyond the pictorial depiction part, as outlined in the figure, which depicts connections among certain units (termed “concepts” and “variables”). Several of the theoretical models specified in the published literature are more complex forms along the lines of this figure. The simplified representation of a limited part of the reality that a theory provides is often specified through a set of statements. For example, the following two statements can describe the contents of the theoretical model in Figure 1.1. Statement 1: Employees’ organizational commitment is positively associated with employees’ positive behaviors at work. Statement 2: Employees’ organizational commitment is negatively associated with employees’ political behaviors at work. These two statements constitute only a part of the theory, which represents some aspects of a part of the reality of employees’ positive and negative behaviors in an organizational setting. These statements are actually a theorist’s conjectures about the reality. Such conjectural statements are referred to as “propositions” or “hypotheses” and the terms “organizational commitment,” “positive behavior,” and “political behavior” included in them are referred to as “concepts” or “variables.” These two statements constitute only a part of a theory because a more complete description of a theory would include additional aspects such as statements of definitions for concepts and variables, assumptions about the various aspects of the phenomenon being studied (for example, assumptions about organizations and about employee behaviors), and statements explaining why organizational commitment should be positively related with positive behaviors and negatively related with political behaviors. In addition, there may be statements specifying the limits of applicability of a theory (for example, only commercial organizations in individualistic societies, or only regular rather than contractual employees).

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Each of these aspects would be discussed in greater detail. However, this preliminary and brief mention of some of the aspects of a theory may help readers to develop a preliminary view of what a theory is. As outlined previously, a theory contains several parts or units that are used to build a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. Among several such parts or units of a theory, there is an inherent coherence in their arrangement. The two conjecture statements outlined previously and the corresponding two connections in Figure 1.1, can be viewed as the output part of the theory, whereas the definitions and assumptions of the theory can be seen as the inputs or the foundation of the theory. Some kind of logic or reasoning uses the assumptions and definitions to yield the conjectures as the outcomes. Often when one tests a theory or reads an article that reports the empirical examination or test of a theory, one is focusing on testing the conjectures or connections specified by the theory. Thus, this may lead to viewing of only a set of conjectures (propositions or hypotheses) specified in a set of statements or depicted in a set of connections as a theory. This, however, represents only the output part of a theory and thus a limited view of a theory. These conjecture statements, by themselves, are not a (complete) theory (Sutton and Staw, 1995). The focus of this book is on how to develop a theory so that certain plausible conjectures (hypotheses or propositions), which constitute the outcome part of a theory, become available for the subsequent empirical verification process. The hypotheses from a theory, which constitute a theory’s output, are used as inputs for the subsequent empirical examination process, which becomes an empirical study. An empirical study mostly begins with a statement of one or more hypothesis. An empirical study focuses on data collection and data analysis to assess to what extent the pattern in analyzed data matches the pattern specified in the hypotheses. In practice, theory building leading to hypothesis specification is carried out in the early part of an empirical paper while the subsequent parts of the empirical paper report the process of examining whether the hypothesis is actually supported empirically or in reality. In routine research when one does research for an empirical study for publishing in a journal, one may develop hypotheses in various ways. First, one may draw upon an existing theory and specify hypotheses based on some implications inferred from the theory. Second, one may develop a new theory and specify hypotheses as a part of that theory. Third, one may adopt hypotheses specified in the existing literature and test them. It is the second of the above approaches—do some theory

IntroducƟon

building and specify hypotheses as a part of that theory—that requires theory building for hypothesis specification. Such theory building for specifying hypotheses that can be taken up for the subsequent empirical examination is the focus of this book.

Why Are Theory and Theory Building Required The answer to the question as to why are theory and theory building required can be understood from grasping the overall research process. The research process reflects the positivistic paradigm/view or model of science (also referred to as the natural science model) and research. The natural science model is extensively used in research in organizational studies area (Lee, 1991: 343). Consistent with this view, Daft (1983: 539) notes that in the textbooks in organizational studies area, the natural science model is usually regarded as an appropriate way of doing research. In this approach, our representations of phenomena or the empirical world or the reality are our conceptual constructions that seek to depict or approximate the reality. This approach would imply that research involves a process of constructing conceptual representations of the reality and then assessing the extent to which our conceptual representations or predictions made from them correspond with the observations made from the empirical world. The former aspect can be termed as “conceptual research” or theory building while the latter could be termed as “empirical research” or theory testing. The research process outlined in Figure 1.2 suggests that the objective of the research as a process is to describe and explain the phenomenon. In general, description and explanation are two of the goals of science (for example, Kerlinger, 1988) and hence research process, because of its focus on seeking to develop descriptions and explanations of the reality, constitutes a part of science. Thus, research as a part of science can be viewed as scientific research. This approach uses data about the reality for verification of conjectures and hence it is empirical in nature, and the sequence of elaborate steps in it also makes it systematic in nature. These features of the research process outlined in Figure 1.2 are consistent with those noted in Kerlinger (1988: 10). In the research process, a researcher first develops a representation of the real-world phenomenon. This is a researcher’s representation of the reality, rather than the actual reality, and hence it is labeled as presumed reality in Figure 1.2. The extent to which it actually corresponds with

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies FIGURE 1.2 A PerspecƟve of Research Process

the actual reality needs to be examined to assess the appropriateness of this representation of the reality. For this, a researcher makes certain conjectures or predictions about what is likely to be observed in the actual reality if the presumed reality is an appropriate representation of the reality. Then the researcher goes on to make the relevant observations from the empirical world by using measurements (for example, scales) and research designs (for example, surveys and experiments). The observations so obtained are then compared with the conjectures/predictions. An adequate correspondence between the conjectures and observations provides some support for the conjectures—to the presumed reality—and adds one piece of valid belief, fact, or knowledge to the body of science. This process is consistent with an approach outlined in Reynolds (2005b: 228–229) in which the research process first constructs a theory to describe a phenomenon to be examined and then tests the appropriateness of the theory. The description in Reynolds (2005b: 228–230) also suggests that this approach is in contrast with another approach that involves summarizing the relationships or regularities that are noted through the observations of the actual empirical phenomenon. The testing of the appropriateness of the constructed theories involves testing the correspondence of a statement/conjecture from a theory/ representation with the observation obtained through empirical research. The various features of this approach are also consistent with the features of scientific approach to knowledge development that include an orderly and data-based examination of a phenomenon where hypotheses and

IntroducƟon

a theory guide the examination process (Kerlinger, 1988: 10). These features are also consistent with the view of research as including testing and improving theories (Dubin, 1969). Thus, the overall research process outlined in Figure 1.2 is reflective of various views of research or scientific approach to knowledge generation and relates to the natural science model of social science. From Figure 1.2 and the aforesaid discussion, an answer to the question as to why theory and theory building are required in scientific research would be clear. Scientific knowledge in organizational studies thus can be viewed as a collection of statements that form a part of researchers’ representations of the reality and have been found to be correspondent with the observed reality as assessed through process of research. This is consistent with Reynolds’ (2005a: 189) view that scientific knowledge consists of a set of theoretical statements though it may be more appropriate to add the phrase “that have been empirically validated” at the end of this statement to make it more consistent with the perspective of scientific research reflected in other sources (for example, Kerlinger, 1988) and in the process depicted in Figure 1.2. It can be seen that the most of the steps in the research process depicted in Figure 1.2 form a part of either theory-building or theory-testing activities and most of the research process can be seen as consisting of theory-building and theorytesting activities. This is consistent with Dubin’s (1976) view that theory and research are inseparable. Thus, systematic research requires theory building to develop representations of empirical worlds (actual reality) in the form of presumed reality and to derive specific and testable conjectures from them. The part of a theory depicted in Figure 1.1 forms a part of the presumed reality in Figure 1.2 and the two conjecture statements associated with Figure 1.1 pertain to the “conjectures” part of the research process depicted in Figure 1.2. Because of this important place of theory building in research process, inputs on various aspects of theory building are a relevant part of research training.

Need for Theory-building Inputs: The Relevance of This Book While theory and theory building form important parts of the research process, there is inadequate clarity about what a theory is. This lack of

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

adequate clarity about what a theory is has been noted in the literature (for example, Van Maanen et al., 2007: 1147; Weick, 1995: 386). Further, a theory may not be a category, but may be more appropriately viewed as a dimension or a continuum (Weick, 1989: 517; Weick, 1995: 386). In this sense, different descriptions of the reality that developed in an effort to build a theory may qualify to varying degrees to be termed as a “theory.” According to this view, making a judgment about whether a particular description is a theory or not may not be as appropriate as making a judgment about the extent to which a particular description comes close to being called a theory. The notion of what a theory is gets more complicated when one considers that researchers have pointed out that there are different forms of theories (DiMaggio, 1995; Reynolds, 2005b). Thus, the term “theory” itself can have different connotations. While there are complications associated with what a theory is, the theorizing process also is not adequately and clearly specified. Weick (1989: 517–519) indicates that there is not adequate literature on how to do theory building and whatever descriptions of theory-building process are available, they are less than adequate. Whetten (1989: 490) also makes related observations by noting that while there is considerable literature on theory-development process, the existing literature is complex and may not adequately help in clarifying the meaning of various aspects pertaining to theory-development process. Similarly, Sutton and Staw (1995: 371–372) note that the existing literature can add to the confusion about how to incorporate a proper theory into a paper. They note the lack of agreement about various issues associated with theory. The above views point out that the literature on theory building is inadequate or it is of inadequate help in clarifying various issues associated with theory. In light of this, one avenue for researchers to obtain theorybuilding inputs is the training received during their education in the research degree programs such as doctoral programs. Some of the views of various researchers on the adequacy of the inputs on theory building provided in research programs can be noted here. The discussion in Bourgeois III (1979: 443) suggests that the doctoral programs do not adequately deliver training in theory construction. A related set of views are outlined by Daft (1983). The discussion in Daft (1983: 541) suggests that the theory-related aspects are addressed to a lesser extent in the doctoral program training in comparison to the other aspects of research process such as data collection and analysis.

IntroducƟon

Lundberg (1976: 6) makes related observations as he notes that in the present research in organizational behavior greater attention is provided to testing hypotheses than on specifying hypotheses. Toward the conclusion of his paper, he indicates a need in research training for paying adequate attention to hypothesis specification. The discussion in Sutton and Staw (1995: 380) also notes that the doctoral training in the area of organizational research focuses mainly on how to collect and analyze data rather than on how to do theory building. A more recent discussion in Klein and Zedeck (2004: 931) suggests that the graduate-level training in applied psychology focuses less on the aspects of theory development in comparison to other aspects of research process such as statistical aspects. Thus, various views outlined above indicate that: (i) there is lack of adequate clarity about what theory is and about the process of building theory, (ii) considerable amount of available literature on these aspects does not adequately aid the understanding of theory-building process, and (iii) inputs provided to students in their research programs courses on research methods do not adequately address hypothesis development or theory-building issues. Thus, a book as this one, which seeks to outline various aspects of theory and theory building, seems a relevant resource for research degree students as well as researchers who wish to pursue scholarly research, but have not received training in theory building for hypothesis setting.

The Focus and Approach of This Book Focus on OrganizaƟonal Studies Area This book focuses on theory building in the area that can be labeled as “organizational studies.” Organizational behavior, organization theory, human resource management, and general management areas can come under the broad area of organizational studies. The appropriateness of the use of the “organizational studies” label for the book’s field of focus and identification of the areas associated with it can be seen from the use of related labels by various scholars (for example, Bacharach, 1989: 496; Bourgeois III, 1979: 443; Daft, 1983: 539; Lundberg, 1976: 6; Miner, 1984: 296; Osigweh, 1989: 579, 584; Sutton and Staw; 1995: 372, 379, 380; Whetten, 1989: 490, 494) to refer to the related fields or areas of management.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Focus on Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon This book focuses on the task of developing theories for the purpose of generating hypotheses than can be tested through subsequent empirical verification process in routine research. It focuses on doing theory building for hypothesis specification for the subsequent empirical research as opposed to doing theory building for developing grand theories or theories that generate significant research programs (such as the theory of transformational leadership [Bass, 1985] or theories of organizational citizenship behavior [for example, Organ, 1988]). Thus, the book’s focus is on providing inputs on a specific aspect of theory building, that is, theory building for specifying hypotheses. Such theory building is the kind that extensively occurs in routine research. The appropriateness of this view is reflected in the expressions of various scholars as outlined next. The discussion in Bacharach (1989: 512) suggests that most of the organizational researchers do not theorize at the level of large or grand theories. Rather, they seek to develop theories that can be empirically verified, and that have some utility in predicting and explaining the phenomenon of interest. Morgan (1980) views scientific activity occurring at three levels—paradigms, perspectives, and puzzle solving. The puzzlesolving activity mainly involves taking existing perspectives or theories and testing their implications through empirical examination. This constitutes most of the routine empirical research in organizational studies. Further, the discussion in Dubin (1976: 29) suggests that theory-building efforts may not always involve developing new theories but may just involve specification of propositions or hypotheses by extending existing theories or by generating implications—hypotheses—from the existing theories. These views indicate that most of the routine research involves specifying testable implications of the existing theories and carrying out empirical examinations to assess whether there is empirical support for these implications. The theory building required in this process is mostly for the purpose of specifying hypotheses (or testable implications/ predictions) from the existing theories and literature. As outlined earlier, the focus of most of the research activity in organizational studies is on hypothesis testing and the theory-building inputs in this book focus on theory building for hypothesis generation. These inputs may address the relatively overlooked aspect of hypothesis generation (for example, Lundberg, 1976). Thus, the focus of this book is on theory building for the limited purpose of hypothesis specification.

IntroducĆ&#x;on

The primary focus of this book is not on theory building for developing theories that can have a broad range of implications, where theory building per se is the focus of research and the theory is the sole outcome of research process, as it is in conceptual research, and where the resulting theory is so comprehensive that it can support several empirical studies. The process involved in such theory building is likely to be associated with much greater synthesis of literature and greater creativity and insight than theory-building process of generating hypothesis, which is the main focus of this book. A dissertation for doctoral work is likely to involve significant amount of theory building followed by empirical examination. In this sense, a doctoral dissertation can be seen as an empirical research paper, involving hypotheses generation and testing, but it may involve more comprehensive literature review and more elaborate theorizing preceding the hypothesis specification and testing than a typical empirical research paper may involve. The theory-building input outlined in this book can be used to develop more elaborate versions of the simple theoretical model outlined in Figure 1.1 for the purpose of empirical testing rather than for the purpose of developing a conceptual model per se. The possibility of such extensions is outlined in the last chapter of this book. The inputs from this book can also aid the hypothesis specification process in doctoral dissertations. With this narrow focus on only one aspect of theory building, this book seeks to provide inputs to research program students and other researchers who have not received inputs in theory building to facilitate their research task of specifying appropriate hypotheses. However, several inputs in this book (for example, what theory is, units of and role of a theory, and theory-building process) can be used in the process of building theories as a part of conceptual research with a theoretical model as an end product itself rather than only in the process of theory building for hypothesis specification as the initial part of an empirical research project that seeks to conduct the test of the hypotheses generated by the preceding theorybuilding process.

Focus on Logical PosiĆ&#x;vism There are different views of research activities such as positivistic view and interpretive view (for example, Lee, 1991). The discussion in Lee (1991: 342) suggests that the interpretive approach involves various approaches such as case-study-based research while the positivistic approach can be labeled as quantitative research.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

This book focuses on theory building involved in the process of conducting research in the positivistic approach. As outlined earlier in this chapter, this approach, at times labeled as “the natural science” model/ approach, is the most extensively used approach in organizational studies.

Source of Book Contents The book’s contents are based on various sources. These include some of the existing literature on theory and theory building and related topics, observations of the actual theory building for hypotheses generation as reflected in various published scholarly journals, my own learning and practice of theory building, and my teaching of theory building as a part of research methods course to doctoral program students, M. Phil. students, and faculty in various areas of management. Thus, a theory is a collection of a set of conjectures or hypotheses which seek to depict a view of the reality. These hypotheses serve as the basis for empirical examination. The process of theory building for hypotheses generation is the focus of this book. It outlines the place of theory in the overall context of reality, knowledge, science, and research. It also outlines the role of theory to address questions such as why a theory is needed in research. Further, it describes various units of a theory. It then describes the process of generating the conjecture (hypotheses and propositions) part of a theory. Specific topics such as extending theory building for hypothesis specification to theory building to propose more comprehensive theoretical models and assessing goodness of theories are also covered.

Summary A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. This limited representation of reality through a theory is the basis of empirical research activity that can support or refute the theory. This process of reality representation through theory building and testing the implications of or predictions from a theory through theory testing constitutes the research process in science and can generate scientific knowledge. This book seeks to provide inputs on building theories for specifying hypotheses like those represented in Figure 1.1 in the area of

IntroducĆ&#x;on

organizational studies and in line with the natural science or positivistic approach to research. Such theory building is often a part of an empirical research paper that specifies hypotheses and then does data collection and analysis to assess whether the results of data analysis support the patterns/ relationships specified in the hypotheses. In light of the inadequate clarity about aspects such as what a theory is and the nature of theory-building efforts and the likelihood that research program students may not receive adequate theory-building inputs during their research methods training, this bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contents may provide a relevant input to researchprogram students for the purpose of doing theory building for hypothesis specification. Inputs from this book on aspects such as units of theory, the process of theory building for hypothesis specification, and goodness of theories can be useful for theory-building efforts aimed at developing comprehensive theoretical models, which could be outcomes and ends in themselves of a conceptual/theoretical paper.

Theory in the Broader Context of Reality, Knowledge, Science, and Research

s indicated in the preceding chapter, in terms of the depiction of research process in Figure 1.1, a theory provides a presumed view of reality. It includes a set of conjectures about reality, and additional conjectures about the reality can be drawn from it. The conjectures in a theory or the additional conjectures drawn from the theory can be subjected to empirical verification. The outcome of this verification indicates whether the conjecture from the theory can be taken as a piece of knowledge about the reality and whether the theory is a reasonable representation of the actual reality. In this chapter, a theory is placed in relation to the broader aspects of research such as reality and knowledge. A more detailed view of a theory is provided. The role of theory in research process is outlined.

Theory in the Context of Reality and Knowledge Science aims at generating knowledge. Research is a particular form of process of generating knowledge. It is a process that is consistent with the features of science as a mode of developing knowledge. Research can be seen as consisting of two parts. The first part is theory building or conceptual research, where conjectures about reality are generated. The second part is theory testing or empirical research, where the conjectures are subjected to empirical verification. This bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s focus is on the first

Theory in the Broader Context

of these two parts, namely, theory building for hypothesis specification, which can be termed as the conceptual part of the research process, which can then serve as the starting point for the subsequent empirical examination part. As hypothesis specification is a part of research and research is an approach to generating knowledge about reality in a manner that is compatible with the features of science, a discussion of certain broader aspects of research becomes relevant. These broader aspects include the nature of: (i) reality, (ii) knowledge, and (iii) science. Theory building and hypothesis setting form a part of the research process. This chapter addresses these broader aspects. Figure 1.2 from Chapter 1 may provide a helpful framework for viewing these broader aspects in a larger framework.

Actual Reality The term “actual reality” in Figure 1.2 refers to the phenomenon in the real world that the research seeks to understand. The term “actual reality” is used here to refer to some phenomenon in the real world that is sought to be studied in research. One of the objectives of research is to generate knowledge about reality or the real world. However, theories may be needed as representation of the actual reality for various reasons. Dubin (1976: 26) suggests that direct observations of the real world may be too complex to develop an understanding or they may not reveal the actual relationships existing between units of interest in the real world. In such instances, developing a simplified representation of an otherwise complex reality and assessing whether the predictions/conjectures derived from that simplified representation actually correspond with the observations obtained from the empirical world is one way of developing an approximate understanding of the real world. In this process, theory building for hypothesis specification provides conjectures/predictions from simplified representations of the reality and thereby facilitates the process of developing an understanding of the reality. Theories are, thus, simplified representations of the real world. An example may add clarity to this discussion. In organizational studies, some phenomena of interest may not be observable or may be observable only indirectly. For instance, an employee’s motivation system that influences his work behaviors is not directly observable. Similarly, an employee’s values, commitment to an organization, satisfaction, and so on, may not be directly observable. Hence, a researcher may first develop

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

a simplified representation of the reality of employees’ organizational commitment and from that picture may develop a prediction that employees with high organizational commitment will perform positive behaviors. Subsequently, a researcher may obtain measures of commitment and positive behaviors using various observable indicators for several employees and would then assess whether there is a strong enough relationship (statistically significant correlation) between the two. If this is found, then one relationship in the representation (theory) of employees’ organizational commitment—that employees’ organizational commitment is positively related with employee contributions to the organization (for example, positive behaviors)—is supported and we have developed a partial knowledge about the reality of the effects of employees’ organizational commitment. Thus, the process of theory building for hypothesis specification is carried out with an objective of developing an understanding of the actual reality.

Knowledge While the actual reality being studied by researchers exists outside them, they develop knowledge about it. This raises a question as to what knowledge is and what is its relationship with the actual reality and theory. Kerlinger’s (1988: 6) description indicates that to know is to form beliefs. Thus, knowledge can be viewed as a set of beliefs. However, not all beliefs may constitute knowledge. Science seeks to generate beliefs or knowledge that has certain features. One of the definitions of science (Hempel, 1965: 11 quoted in Stone, 1978: 7) suggests that science seeks to develop a particular kind of knowledge and that this knowledge is developed in a particular way. It suggests that science seeks to develop objective knowledge that can be supported by empirical data rather than seeking support from individual opinions. It further suggests that the empirical data for such support is collected by observing and experimenting in a suitable manner. This description of the kind of knowledge sought to be generated by science indicates an emphasis on having an empirical or factual basis for the knowledge. Similarly, Kerlinger (1988: 6–7) notes that in the method of sciences it is assumed that the objects in the real world exist whose features exist independent of the opinions that different individuals may have of them and the knowledge generation in science is done in relation to the evidence or objective assessment of the real things. Thus, beliefs grounded in objective evidence about the objects in the real world or in objective

Theory in the Broader Context

empirical evidence can be regarded as constituting the knowledge that science seeks to generate. In this view, correspondence of beliefs with the empirical world or actual reality qualifies those beliefs to be regarded as scientific knowledge. For instance, let us consider a person sitting in a room from where he cannot see what is happening outside the room. The person may hold a belief at that moment that it is raining outside. However, this belief would constitute the person’s knowledge or scientific knowledge about the reality only if it is actually raining outside. In this example, the correspondence between the belief and the actual reality outside determines whether the belief constitutes knowledge or not. The correspondence criterion used to assess whether a belief is true or not implies that there may be beliefs that do not constitute knowledge. For instance, a supervisor may believe that a subordinate is not committed to the organization whereas the actual reality may be that the subordinate is actually committed to the organization. In this case, the supervisor’s belief may constitute misperception of the reality rather than knowledge about reality. Thus, science as a process of generating knowledge can be seen as generating belief statements about the actual world (conjectures from and about the presumed reality) and retaining those belief statements that correspond with the objectively obtained empirical evidence. Belief statements retained out of this process constitute knowledge in a scientific sense. In this view, science generates knowledge as an outcome of empirical testing of the belief statements by retaining empirically validated belief statements as pieces of knowledge. Theory-building activity pertains to the specification of presumed reality and conjectures parts of this knowledgegeneration process of science. This activity generates plausible belief statements, which are subsequently subjected to empirical verification, and those belief systems that get empirically supported, constitute pieces of knowledge about the actual reality. This entire process of generating plausible belief statements, empirically verifying them, and retaining those statements that are empirically supported constitutes the research process. In this view, the aspects of “theory building for hypothesis specification,” “research,” “knowledge,” and “actual reality” get interrelated to each other.

Presumed Reality While research aims at generating knowledge about the actual reality, and the actual reality may not be directly accessible to the researcher or

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

may be too complex to discern relationships in, a researcher may develop a presumed view of the reality. For instance, a researcher can develop a conceptual model or theory of what an employee’s commitment to an organization is, what causes it, and what outcomes it has. The researcher can specify or reasonably assume, for example, that commitment is an employee’s particular type of attitude toward an organization. Then, he can make conjectures about what organizational aspects cause it. He can also make conjectures about the various consequences of the employee’s commitment to an organization. For instance, Mayer and Schoorman (1998) hypothesized participative decision making, job involvement, and role ambiguity as three possible organizational aspects influencing employees’ value commitment (a type of commitment) to an organization. Mayer and Schoorman (1992) also hypothesized that value commitment will be more strongly associated with the employee outcomes such as performance and positive behaviors than continuance commitment (another form of employees’ organizational commitment) would. The specification of the various antecedents and consequences of employees’ organizational commitment contained in the above description is a set of conjectures about commitment antecedents and commitment, and about commitment consequences and commitment, and these conjectures are derived from the presumed view of the reality of employees’ organizational commitment. Mayer and Schoorman (1992, 1998) specified these conjectures as hypotheses and they subsequently assessed whether the observed reality accessed through their data collection efforts corresponds with the presumed reality formed by the previously outlined hypothesized relationships. This example illustrates that a researcher seeks to develop a presumed view of the reality of which conjectures or hypotheses are a part. Conjectures are tentative beliefs. After developing them, a researcher collects data about the actual reality and assesses whether the data actually corresponds with the conjectures. If it does, then the conjectures are accepted as reflecting the reality. Then each such conclusion of correspondence between the conjecture and actual reality provides an empirical fact, in the form of an empirically supported conjecture, about the actual reality. This adds one piece of knowledge to the already existing body of knowledge. This also strengthens the research community’s confidence in the adequacy of the presumed reality in representing the actual reality. This discussion suggests that the presumed reality includes a set of conjectures about the actual reality.

Theory in the Broader Context

In the aforementioned discussion, the other aspects of Figure 2.2 also become relevant. Therefore, some discussion of the components and process depicted in the figure may be relevant here. The first component in the figure is the actual reality. A researcher seeks to develop an understanding of this. In scientific research, a researcher seeks to develop knowledge about the actual reality. For this, he can develop a plausible view of what actual reality is. The term “presumed reality” is used here for the plausible view that a researcher may develop about the actual reality. This presumed reality may take a form of a theory or a model of the reality. He then may derive or select certain conjectures for the purpose of empirically examining them. The conjectures are often a part of theory itself and constitute one of the several units or components of a theory. Sometimes, however, a researcher may use multiple and pre-existing presumed realities or theories to develop conjectures pertaining to the real-world phenomenon being examined. For example, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) used three theories— social learning theory, attraction-selection-attrition perspective, and social information processing theory—to derive conjecture or hypotheses concerning the individual employee’s performance of antisocial behaviors in groups. Here, these three theories or presumed realities were not developed by these two researchers, but they used these existing presumed realities (that is, theories) and did some additional theory building in order to specify conjectures or hypotheses about the employee’s antisocial behaviors in groups. Thus, theory building for hypothesis specification involved using the existing three presumed views of the reality or three existing theories to specify hypotheses/conjecturers outlining relationships between aspects such as group characteristics and individualemployee group members’ antisocial behaviors. In this example, the presumed reality and conjectures constitute two distinct parts in the overall research process as depicted in Figure 1.2. The researcher, thus, may take out one or more of the conjectures from the theory or model or the presumed reality or may specify such conjecture using the presumed reality or theory (as done in the previously described paper of Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly [1998]). He would then proceed to assess whether the data about reality corresponds with it or not. For this, he obtains data using measurement tools and data collection procedures. This data constitutes the observed reality. The observed reality is filtered through the measurement and data collection procedures of the researcher and thus, may not exactly reflect the actual reality. This is acknowledged in Figure 1.2, where the “observed reality” and

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

“actual reality” are depicted as two distinct parts. Then, by analyzing the data, the researcher examines whether the pattern of data corresponds with the pattern specified in the conjectures from the presumed reality. If there is a correspondence between the conjectures from the presumed reality and the pattern in the observed data, then the conjectures can be taken as empirically valid or as supported by the data. Each of these conjectures that is supported by data then provides one more piece of knowledge or empirical fact about the actual reality. These empirically supported conjectures also add to the support for the presumed reality as an adequate or reasonable representation of the actual reality. This book’s focus is on how to do theory building for specifying hypotheses that can be taken up for subsequent empirical examination. There are several ways of doing it and one of these is to use the existing theories or presumed views of reality, as outlined in the previous example, for specifying hypothesis for empirical testing. The actual process of theory building that can be used for this and other ways (other than using the existing theories) for generating hypotheses is discussed in one of the subsequent chapters of the book. Sometimes, multiple hypotheses generated for empirical examination may constitute a small theoretical model because the process of specification of these hypotheses also results in the specification of several other units or components of a theory. Those conjectures from a theory or model, which can be taken up or are taken up for empirical verification, are called hypotheses. Thus, hypotheses can be seen as derived from a theory or model. Thus, the process of hypothesis-setting may be typically preceded by theory building with an objective of developing testable conjectures or hypotheses. This theory-building process for hypothesis setting spans across two of the components—presumed reality and conjectures—in the research process depicted in Figure 1.2.

Theory in the Context of Science and Research Science and Theory As explained earlier, in social sciences, knowledge about actual reality is developed through a long sequence. The steps in this sequence include developing a view of the actual reality in the form of presumed reality, deriving one or more conjectures from this view of presumed reality and carrying out research for verifying whether these conjectures actually correspond with the observations made about the actual reality.

Theory in the Broader Context

A relevant question here is why the knowledge-generation process goes through such a long sequence involving so many steps. This question can be addressed by considering the nature of science. Science can be viewed as a process as well as a body of knowledge (Kerlinger, 1988). Viewed as a process, science seeks to generate a body of knowledge. Viewed as a body of knowledge, science contains a set of facts about the actual reality. As noted earlier, one of the definitions of science (Hempel, 1965: 11 as quoted in Stone, 1978: 7) indicates that science seeks to generate a body of knowledge that is supported or verified on the basis of empirical facts obtained from conducting appropriate experiments or by making appropriate observations. Thus, in the process of knowledge generation, one approach is to propose a tentative view of the reality and then conduct appropriate experiments or make appropriate observations for data collection to assess if the various parts, links, or conjectures present in or derived from the presumed view of the reality are supported by the obtained data. The tentative view of the reality (presumed reality) serves as a source of generating tentative conjectures that can then indicate the nature of data required to assess support for them and the nature of experiments that need to be conducted. These tentative views of the actual reality are sought to be depicted through a theory. A theory can be regarded as a tentative view of the actual reality. From theory, a set of conjectures can be derived, which can then be used to guide the data-collection activity for their verification. In this way, theory provides a tentative view of the actual reality, and conjectures derived from it can guide data-collection activity to assess if the data about actual reality corresponds with the conjectures and, therefore, with the theory. If the data collected about the actual reality (actually, this is the observed reality) corresponds with the conjectures derived from the theory, then the theory can be considered to be a reasonable representation of the actual reality. Thus, while science seeks to generate knowledge, and this knowledge may be used to attain goals of science such as description and explanation (for example, Bacharach, 1989; Kerlinger, 1988), theory, and the hypotheses forming a part of the theory or derived from the theory for empirical testing, have a major role in the process of this knowledge generation in that they help decide which observations to obtain, what to compare these observations against, and so on. Reflecting the major role of theory and its hypotheses in knowledge-generation process, the discussion in Kerlinger (1988: 8) suggests that the main goal of science is to provide an explanation,

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

and theories constitute these explanations, and that theory is the main goal of science. Thus, theory has an important place and function in science in facilitating the knowledge-generation process of science.

Research and Theory A definition of research, provided in Stone (1978: 11), suggests that research is examination of a real phenomenon through the adoption of methods outlined or recommended in science. This definition can be interpreted in light of the earlier cited definition of science. In the earlier cited definition of science (Hempel, 1965: 11 as quoted in Stone,1978: 7), it was indicated that science seeks to generate knowledge that is not affected by individual opinions and that can be supported in light of empirical facts obtained by conducting appropriate experiments or making appropriate observations. Based on this, the features of the methods of science seem to be that it is systematic, objective, and empirical. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the definition of research as a process that adopts methods outlined or recommended in science, or methods in compliance with the guidelines of science (Stone, 1978: 11), suggests that research can be viewed as a process of examining a phenomenon in an objective, systematic, and empirical manner. Research can be divided into two broad classes—conceptual research and empirical research. In terms of Figure 1.2, conceptual research focuses on developing the presumed reality and conjectures while empirical research focuses on collection of data and assessment of correspondence between collected data and conjectures. A theory can be viewed as an outcome of conceptual research and a basis for empirical research that seeks to verify the implications of, or conjectures generated from, the theory. These two parts, as depicted in Figure 1.2, are interconnected in that they form parts of the knowledge-generation process and support each other. Theory and its conjectures coming from the conceptual part of the research guide empirical research while outcomes of empirical research can suggest the avenues for alterations in the existing theories, which can then yield fresh conjectures. Dubin (1976: 23) refers to this entire knowledge-generation process as a cyclic process containing the parts of theory and research and indicates that the process up to proposition specification forms the theory or theoretical part of this cycle. Based on the preceding discussion and in light of Dubin (1976: 23), it can be suggested that the term “research” in the cycle refers to subsequent empirical verification activities (including

Theory in the Broader Context

deriving hypothesis from propositions and collecting data on measurable variables used in the hypotheses). Dubin (1976: 33) however notes that these two parts—theory and research—of the cycle are closely linked with each other. Dubin (1976: 33) notes that research could take two possible approaches in its task in relation to a theoretical model: it could seek to examine the proof for a theoretical model or it could seek to improve a theoretical model. In this sense, research could be seen as closely linked to theory. The guiding role of a theory in the research process is also reflected in a part of Kerlinger’s (1988: 10) definition of scientific research as a process in which a theory and associated hypotheses about the likely nature of the empirical phenomenon guide the process. The previous discussion suggests that a theory is a significant part of the scientific research process. Theory building results in the depiction of a view of actual reality in the form of the presumed reality and can provide a set of conjectures about what is likely to be observed in the actual reality. These conjectures or implications about the actual reality derived from a theory, can serve as the basis for the subsequent empirical research activity.

Paradigms, Actual Reality, and Theory In social sciences, our understanding of the reality is an interpretation or construction of reality that is distinct from actual reality, and the interpretation or constructed view of reality is influenced by the view of the world or reality that a researcher adopts. The term “paradigm” reflects the world-view or the alternative view of the reality adopted by researchers (Morgan, 1980). The term “paradigm” is used in various ways. For instance, Mackenzie and House (1978: 8) suggest that paradigms are a collection of theories, laws, and procedures and instruments of research that are accepted by a number of scientists, while Morgan (1980: 606–607) suggests the appropriateness of looking at paradigms as world-views or as alternative realities. According to Morgan (1980: 607–608), researchers make certain basic assumptions about the nature of society and the nature of knowledge, and these assumptions shape their view of the social world. The description in Morgan (1980: 606–608) also suggests that under the influence of their world-view, researchers adopt certain metaphors to construct or interpret the reality, and routine research activity examines various inferences drawn from the metaphor-based view of the phenomenon.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Thus, paradigms, formed by the assumptions about the actual reality and the nature of knowledge, and influencing researchers’ construction of the presumed realities can be positioned as an influence on the presumed reality in Figure 1.2. A researcher’s construction of presumed reality is likely to reflect partly the actual reality and partly the influence of a paradigm within which the researcher operates. Thus, paradigms can be viewed as reflecting assumptions about reality and shaping the forms of presumed reality constructed in the research process.

Summary A theory is a part of the scientific research process. Scientific research process seeks to generate knowledge that is objective and based on systematically obtained empirical facts. This process involves developing knowledge about actual reality by developing theories of reality, deriving or selecting conjectures from or implications of theory, collecting relevant data from the actual reality for assessing whether the reality reflected in the obtained data is consistent with the conjectures, assessing the correspondence between conjectures and the obtained data, drawing conclusions as to whether or not the conjectures truly reflect the actual reality, and finally accepting as empirical facts those conjectures for which there is a correspondence between the conjectures and the data obtained from the actual reality. These empirical facts constitute scientific knowledge about the reality. While this process yields an empirical fact about the reality, it also yields information about whether the conjectures and the theory from which these conjectures come are valid. Thus, the research process generates pieces of knowledge about actual reality by using a theory as a representation of the actual reality and it also yields conclusions about how valid a representation a theory is of the actual reality. In light of this place of a theory in the knowledge-generation process, a theory occupies a specific place in relation to the actual reality, knowledge, science, and research. It is a constructed view of actual reality, an important instrument of scientific knowledge generation, an important link in the research process, and an important goal of science or an important means of facilitating the attainment of the goals of science. A more detailed discussion on what a theory is and its role in the research process is covered in the next chapter.

Theory: What It Is and Its Role in Research

hapter 1 provided a brief description of what a theory is and of the broader aspects such as reality, knowledge, science, and research. Chapter 2 described a theory in relation to reality, knowledge, science, and research. Now this chapter provides a more detailed discussion of what a theory is and outlines its various specific roles or functions in the knowledge-generation process that constitutes research.

What Is a Theory? A RepresentaƟon of Reality Theory constitutes a representation of the reality. Theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. This is consistent with Dubin’s (1976) view that a theory is a researcher’s attempt to model some part of a complex world. Theory is a representation of the reality rather than the actual reality. However, a good theory is expected to reasonably and accurately represent the actual reality. The representation is simplified and focuses on a limited part of the reality because a complex representation of a large part of the reality could overwhelm the researcher and impede understanding. One of the roles of a theory is to prevent the researcher from being overwhelmed by the intricacies of the reality (Bacharach, 1989: 496).

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

A Set of Generalized Statements A theory seeks to depict the reality through certain interrelated statements. In this sense, a theory is a set of interrelated statements about the reality (Weick, 1989). These statements reflect some level of generalization. For example, the connection between organizational commitment and positive behaviors in Figure 1.1, which depicts a part of a theory, can be expressed in the form of a statement: “Employees’ organizational commitment is positively related with employees’ positive behaviours.” This statement has some degree of generalization. It does not refer to a particular employee, but to employees in general. It does not refer to a specific feeling (for example, fondness), but to the work-attitude of organizational commitment. It does not refer to employee feelings toward a specific organization (for example, organization X) but to commitment to organizations in general. It does not refer to a specific positive behavior (for example, making innovative suggestions) of an employee in an organization, but to a category of behaviors referred to as positive behaviors. Thus, a theory is a set of “generalized statements.” This feature of a theory is reflected in Dubin’s (1976: 18) expression that theories provide a view of the reality at a level of generalization that is greater than the generalization that can be provided by merely summarization of data.

A Set of Interrelated Statements A single statement would not constitute a theory. It would be a part of a theory. A theory would contain a set of interrelated statements. These statements could be of various types. One category of statements could be assumptions about the reality that are included in a theory. For instance, statements like “organizational commitment is a positive attitude” or “positive attitudes result in positive behaviors” could be included as assumptions in a theory associated with the relationships specified in Figure 1.1. Another category of statements could be definitions of the terms included in a theory. In the example depicted in Figure 1.1, there could be a category of statements defining the terms “organizational commitment” and “positive behaviors.” Another category of statements could be the conjectures about what is likely to be present in the actual reality. For instance, the statement “employees who have a high level of

Theory and its Role in Research

organizational commitment are more likely to perform positive behaviors” is a conjecture about what is likely to be present in the actual reality of an organizational context. The statements included in a theory are systematically interrelated. These statements do not form a mere list of unrelated statements. The various categories of statements such as definitional statements, statements of assumption, and conjectural statements in a theory are systematically interrelated to each other. In a theory, the statements of assumptions are likely to facilitate the derivation of conjectural statements. For instance, assumptions that organizational commitment reflects employees’ positive attitude toward an organization, positive behaviors reflect a positive action toward an organization, and the positive attitudes toward an object result in positive action toward that object, collectively facilitate the specification of the conjectural statement that “employees’ organizational commitment would be positively related with employees’ positive behavior.” Thus, the three statements of assumption and one conjectural statement, as a set, are systematically interrelated. These statements, along with the statements of definitions of the terms “organizational commitment” and “positive behaviors” constitute a part of the theory. This ‘interrelatedness’ among statements is an important feature of the statements contained in a theory. Attention to this feature is reflected in suggestions such as various parts of a theory need to be logically consistent (Lee, 1991: 344) and that a theory needs to possess logical adequacy (Bacharach, 1989: 505). The logic aspect of theory and the “systematic interrelatedness” among the statements of a theory is discussed at length in the next two chapters.

An Abstract RepresentaƟon of Reality A theory seeks to provide a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. Simplification is partly attained by using generalized, as opposed to specific, statements. As indicated earlier, the generalization that “employees’ organizational commitment will be positively related with employees’ positive behaviors” facilitates simplification. It avoids the need for statements about each employee or about each specific positive feeling of employees toward an organization or about each specific form of positive behavior toward an organization. This allows simplification in representing the reality.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

However, this generalization is attained by specifying the terms or entities in theory in an abstract manner. For instance, instead of specifying various specific forms of employees’ positive behaviors toward an organization such as helping a coworker, saving company resources, spreading positive word about one’s organization, the term or label “positive behavior” is used. This term may be defined as “those employee behaviors directed at an organization or its members that benefit the organization.” The label or the term is at an abstract level and can include various instances of behaviors such as helping a coworker, taking extra responsibility, making innovative suggestions, preserving an organization’s property, spreading a good word about an organization, and so on. Thus, various forms of employee behaviors are included under the single and abstract term of “positive behaviors.” The term has high level of abstractness in that it is not defined in terms of direct observations (for example, giving tools to coworkers), but its meaning is specified in terms of the presence of certain attributes (for example, “directed at an organization or its members” and “benefits the organization”) and based on this meaning, several occurrences in the real world can be identified. Thus, this abstractness of the terms used in a theoretical statement allows the theory to reduce the complexity in the observed world by subsuming several occurrences/ entities under a single term and by representing a complex phenomenon using relationships between a few terms. Thus, the complexity of the real world is reduced in its representation as a theory and this way, theories provide a “simplified” representation of the reality. These abstract terms used in a theory are referred to as “concepts” and an extensive discussion of them is covered in the next chapter. Some of the features of a theory outlined previously in describing what a theory is are also reflected in other scholars’ descriptions of a theory. Some such definitions or descriptions of a theory from the existing literature are outlined next.

A Few DefiniƟons or DescripƟons of a Theory It was discussed earlier that Dubin (1976: 26) describes a theory as a researcher’s attempted representation of a part of the real phenomenon. Dubin’s (1976: 26) description suggests that a theory provides a representation of a real phenomenon by simplifying the complexity in the phenomenon and by depicting systematic relationships among the various aspects of the phenomenon, which mere observations may not capture.

Theory and its Role in Research

A description of theory in Weick (1989: 517) suggests that a theory contains an organized collection of statements that are generalized in nature and that apply across a wide range of situations. It can be noted that this description of theory reflects the features of: (i) organized collection of statements, (ii) abstract units (reflecting the generalized nature), and (iii) applicability across a wide range of situations (generalized view). Another part of the description in Weick (1989: 517) further suggests that high degree of orderliness in statements, high abstraction in phenomenon representation, and large breadth of application, possibly through generalized statements, in a representation more adequately make the representation constitute a theory. These features are consistent with those outlined in the aforementioned description of a theory. A description of theory in terms of its structure is reflected in Bacharach (1989: 496), which suggests that a theory contains statements that specify relationships among concepts and is delimited by a boundary. A description of theory in terms of its purpose is also reflected in Bacharach (1989: 496), which suggests that a theory serves the purpose of providing a representation of the real-world phenomenon being examined in such a manner that the representation is orderly, subdues the complexity of the real-world phenomenon, and helps in clearly conveying the phenomenon. The description in Kerlinger (1988: 9) suggests that a theory contains concepts, definitions, and propositions. It also suggests that the relationships contained in a theory provide an orderly view of the phenomenon being examined. It further suggests that a theory serves the goal of providing an explanation and predicting the phenomenon. The features of a theory reflected in the previous descriptions or definitions of a theory include: (i) a man-made and constructed representation of a part of the empirical world, (ii) a simplified (organized, ordered) representation, (iii) containing generalized and interrelated statements, and (iv) facilitating ordering, comprehension, communication, prediction, and explanation of the real-world phenomena. Some of the functions of a theory (for example, explanation, prediction) are included in the previous definitions or descriptions of a theory. Also the place of a theory in relation to science and research is outlined in the early part of this chapter. A more detailed discussion of some of the roles a theory serves in the process of scientific (science-based) research is outlined in the next section.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Role of Theory Role of Theory in Simplifying and Ordering the RepresentaƟon of Empirical World A theory seeks to represent an empirical phenomenon in a simplified and orderly manner (for example, Bacharach, 1989: 509). For instance, consider that a researcher wants to understand a phenomenon in the real world such as why people react negatively when they receive some monetary rewards or outcomes. Equity theory of Adams (1965) and its subsequent elaborations explain this by providing a conjecture that when the ratio of one’s outcomes (monetary rewards, and so on) to one’s inputs (efforts, and so on) is smaller than that of some referent (another person with whom one compares oneself) then one experiences a negative feeling of resentment coming from being under-rewarded. The theory also provides conjectures about the nature of one’s reactions when one’s outcome–input ratio is equal to the referent other or is greater than that of the referent other. Thus, this theory seeks to explain individuals’ reactions to outcomes by specifying three conjectures. These are likely to be grounded in certain assumptions about human nature such as the use of social comparisons by individuals and preference for equity and aversion to inequity states. Equity theory, thus, seems to provide an ordered and simplified view of individual reactions to outcomes.

Role of Theory in FacilitaƟng ExplanaƟon and PredicƟon Goals of Science The goals of science include explanation and prediction of the reality or of some phenomena of the reality (for example, Kerlinger, 1988). The term explanation seems to be used interchangeably with understanding (for example, Evered, 2005: 198). Evered (2005: 198) indicates that to provide an explanation for something is to make it meaningful so that it can be understood. Similarly, Whetten (1989: 491) indicates that explanation involves indicating “why” behind a particular observed relationship. Copi and Cohen (2002: 494) indicate that explanation is the reverse of reasoning and Hurley (2003: 19–20) indicates that explanation differs from an argument, which is a form of reasoning, in that in reasoning one

Theory and its Role in Research

deduces or infers a statement/conclusion from certain premises whereas in explaining, one indicates how a conclusion (for example, a conclusion about a relationship between A and B) can be accounted for (explained) using certain premises. Thus, in general, to explain something is to account for or to provide a rationale or reasons for its occurrence. This may involve relating an unknown or new phenomenon to a known phenomenon or outlining how a general law can account for a specific observation. Prediction, on the other hand, involves outlining what is likely to be observed in the empirical world. According to some views, these two tasks and processes of prediction and explanation are interrelated. For instance, the description in Mackenzie and House (1978: 8) suggests that both explanations and predictions refer to being able to place the occurrence of a phenomenon in relation to or as emerging from certain explanatory statements or premises, but there is likely to be a difference in the direction of movement in that in an explanation one goes from the conclusion to indicating how certain premises can explain the conclusionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s occurrence, whereas in a prediction one goes from certain premises to generating the implication or conclusion that constitutes a prediction. In a somewhat similar manner, Kerlinger (1988: 10) notes that explanation implies or subsumes prediction in the sense that outlining an explanation in a theory for an outcome implies that the outcome can be predicted from the circumstances contained in the explanation. This parallels the relationship between explanation and reasoning outlined previously in that explanation involves accounting for an occurrence using certain explanatory or underlying statements/phenomena whereas reasoning or prediction involves deducing a conclusion, occurrence, or phenomenon from underlying statements. However, some authors note a distinction between explanation and prediction. For instance, Dubin (1976: 32) suggests that prediction is a statement of what would be observed in the empirical world whereas explanation or understanding is an account of or justification for what will be observed. Bacharach (1989: 501) also suggests a possible distinction between prediction and explanation. Bacharachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1989: 501) description suggests that an explanation outlines the meanings of various parts of a theory whereas prediction involves a process of assessing correspondence between the meaning and the actual empirical reality.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Thus, in general, the previously outlined views indicate that a prediction involves indicating what is likely to be observed in the empirical world or a conclusion about a phenomenon whereas understanding or explanation involves outlining the justifications (in terms of general laws, and so on) for the prediction. A theory facilitates both the explanation and prediction goals of science. The hypotheses from a theory make predictions about what is likely to be observed in the empirical world and other parts of the theory—definitions, assumptions, general laws, and reasoning process—collectively go into outlining an explanation for the hypotheses. Consistent with this, explanatory utility and predictive utility are included as two criteria for determining how good a theory is (for example, Bacharach, 1989). Using Figure 1.2, it was indicated that a theory depicts a presumed view of the actual reality. The presumed view of the reality or a theory includes or can provide conjectures about actual reality (which are predictions). It also specifies certain reasons and justifications for these predictions (which are explanations). These features built in to a theory provide it predictive and explanatory potential. This presumed view of reality or these conjectures contained in or generated from a theory seek to depict certain aspects of a phenomenon in the reality. When the conjectures from this presumed view are found to be consistent with the observations made from the actual reality then the theory’s potential predictive utility has been realized. A theory’s assumptions, definitions, reasoning, and so on, provide the explanation for the conjecture and hence for the observed reality that has been found to be consistent with the conjecture from the presumed view or presumed reality. In this situation, a theory’s explanatory and predictive utility can be regarded as having been extended to the observed aspects of the empirical world in the sense that a theory, through its conjectures, has been able to predict certain aspects of the reality and has been able to extend the explanations contained in it for its conjectures to the actual observed aspects of the reality that have been found to be consistent with its conjectures. In this way, a theory facilitates the attainment of prediction and explanation goals of science.

Role of Theory in Bridging Conceptual and Empirical Research Another role of a theory in the research process can be understood by considering its place in Figure 1.2. A theory represents a part of the reality and it serves as a guide for the subsequent activities of data collection and

Theory and its Role in Research

data analysis to assess whether the observations from the actual reality correspond with the theory. A theory in this manner constitutes a bridge between conceptual research, focusing on designing a representation of the reality, and empirical research, focusing on examining the extent of correspondence between the representation and the empirical world. It constitutes an outcome of conceptual research and it forms the basis of empirical research aimed at assessing whether the conjectures from the theory are consistent with the observations made from the actual reality. Thus, it serves as a bridge between conceptual and empirical research.

Role of Theory in FacilitaƟng Economy in Empirical VerificaƟon In principle, one may generate several conjectures about the reality of which one seeks to develop an understanding. However, not all these conjectures will have a reasonable chance of being consistent with the data that may be obtained about the actual reality. In other words, not all conjectures are likely to be supported by the empirical verification process. The process of empirical verification of a conjecture consumes resources such as time, intellectual effort, and money. Therefore, if one can somehow undertake the empirical examination of only “good” conjectures or plausible conjectures, then economy in the use of resources can be obtained in the process of empirical examination and thus, in the process of developing an understanding of the actual reality. A theory facilitates this by generating conjectures that seem plausible or that seem to have a good chance of being supported by data if the premises or assumptions on which the theory is based are sound. Thus, conjectures generated from a good theory are plausible and there is a fair likelihood of their being consistent with the data obtained about the actual reality. Bacharach (1989: 507) includes predictive utility as one of the features of a good theory or one of the criteria to be used for assessing goodness of a theory. In describing predictive utility of a theory, Bacharach (1989: 509–510) notes that a theory can facilitate prediction through its propositions and hypotheses rather than relying on the process of making predictions through a sampling of observations. This criterion of plausibility suggests that a good theory provides conjectures that have a reasonable likelihood of being consistent with the data obtained about the actual reality. If an empirical examination process seeks to assess support for conjectures that are likely to be consistent

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

with the reality, then the wastage of resources that may occur from doing empirical verification of all possible conjectures is likely to be saved. Thus, by providing plausible or good conjectures, a theory facilitates attainment of economy in the empirical examination process and thereby in the process of developing an understanding about the reality.

Role of Theory in PoinƟng to the Areas for Advancement of Science A theory is a representation of the reality. A quotation in Dubin (1969) indicates something to the effect that a theory is like a mesh with which we try to capture the reality and that the progress in science involves making the mesh finer. An interpretation can be developed here that if one tries to catch sand in a mesh, then depending on the mesh’s coarseness, some fine sand may leak out of it and thus, some reality will leak out of or will not be captured in the mesh of a theory. The second part of the quotation indicates that the progress in science involves making the mesh finer, possibly suggesting that a theory can be improved to represent the reality more and more closely so that the leakage of the reality from the theory, which is a representation of the reality, is reduced. Consistent with this, Dubin (1976) notes that seeking to improve an existing theory is one approach that researchers can take. Thus, a theory and the available empirical evidence for it can be assessed and areas where a theory needs to be improved can be identified. In this way, a theory and the associated empirical evidence indicate the various possibilities for making revisions in a theory and facilitate empirical research to assess whether such revisions result in a theory that more closely represents the reality.

Summary This chapter described what a theory is and outlined a few definitions and descriptions of a theory from the existing literature. A theory is a simplified representation of the reality. Often, this is an abstract representation of the reality. It uses general terms such as positive behaviors rather than particular instances such as helping a particular worker with a particular problem. A theory represents the reality with a set of statements. These statements can take various forms such as statements of assumptions

Theory and its Role in Research

about the reality, definitions of some of the terms used in the theory, and conjectures developed as an outcome of the theory. Typically, these statements are generalized and interrelated. A few definitions and descriptions of theory outlined in the chapter point out these aspects of a theory. The chapter also outlined the role of a theory in the research process. A theory facilitates the attainment of the explanation and prediction goals of science. It provides a simplified and ordered representation of the reality. It can serve as a bridge between conceptual and empirical research. It can facilitate economy in the empirical verification process. It can provide directions for making revisions in it for making itself more consistent with the actual reality. So far, the chapters mainly described what a theory is and its relationship with the broader aspects of reality, knowledge, science, and research. These chapters looked at the external interfaces of a theory with the broader aspects of the knowledge-generation process. The next chapter provides a view of the internal aspects or contents of theory. Chapter 5 describes how these internal aspects of theory need to be put together to do theory building for specifying hypotheses.

Units of Theory

his chapter discusses the internal parts or units of a theory. A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. The representation is composed from certain aspects such as assumptions about the reality, concepts, and relationships among concepts. These aspects used in composing a representation of the reality in the form of a theory can be termed as the “units” of a theory (Dubin [1969] was the term “units” for some of the components of a theory). This chapter discusses various units or constituent elements of a theory by focusing on the internal aspects of a theory. These contents of this chapter would provide preparatory foundation for the next chapter that discusses the process through which some of these units are used in actually doing theory building for hypothesis specification. Based on various descriptions of theory (for example, Bacharach, 1989; Dubin, 1969, 1976; Kerlinger, 1988; Whetten, 1989), the following can be identified as the units of a theory: (i) domain, (ii) concepts, (iii) variables, (iv) definitional statements, (v) premises, (vi) propositions, and (vii) hypotheses. Each of these units is described in this chapter.

Unit One of a Theory: Domain Domain reflects the range of the real-life phenomenon that a theory seeks to represent. For instance, the part of a theory depicted in Figure 1.1 seeks to represent employees’ extra-role behaviors and more specifically attitudinal antecedents of employee extra-role behavior. Thus, the domain of this theory is employee extra-role behaviors or attitudinal antecedents of employee extra-role behaviors. The two extra-role behaviors (positive behavior and political behavior) and one work-attitude (organizational

Units of Theory

commitment) and two relationships between organizational commitment and these two behaviors constitute the domain of this theory. The three aspects—organizational commitment, positive behavior, and political behavior—indicate “what” aspects of the reality the theory seeks to represent and the two relationships indicate “how” these aspects are related to each other. Thus, the domain of a theory is formed by “what” and “how” aspects of a theory (Whetten, 1989: 491). The discussion in Dubin (1976) suggests that a boundary of a theory limits the scope of application of a theory. In this sense, boundaries of a theory can be viewed as delimiting its domain. In this sense, a theory’s focus of representations or domain is delimited by its boundary. As a theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality, it seems reasonable to suggest that the domain of a theory specifies the part of the reality that a theory seeks to represent. With this view, the domain of a theory seems to specify the scope of the theory in terms of the part of the reality that the theory seems to present. A domain, thus, can be seen as delimiting the reality that is sought to be represented by a theory. The part of the reality delimited by the domain, constitutes the scope of a theory. This can be illustrated by an example. Suppose, as an example, a researcher wishes to study the reality of employee performance in organizations. A theory of employee performance could focus on performance with varying levels of scope. The reality of “employee performance” can be delimited in various ways. Performance could include assessment of all employee behaviors in an organization covering employees’ in-role behaviors and extra-role behaviors. Employees’ job description will specify a series of behaviors that are likely to facilitate the attainment of an organization’s goals. Such behaviors, including quantity and quality of work produced, punctuality, and attendance, will constitute in-role performance of an employee. Employees may also perform behaviors that are not included in their job descriptions and hence are not a part of an organization’s formal performance requirements from an employee. These behaviors will constitute extra-role performance. Extra-role performance may include positive behaviors such as preserving organizational property, political behaviors, and destructive behaviors such as destroying organizational property. In this example, a theory that seeks to represent the reality of employee performance in organizations can focus on various parts of this reality and thus, can have different domains providing different scopes for the theory. The theory could scope itself to study “overall performance” of

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

an employee, which may contain both in-role performance and extra-role performance. Here the domain of a theory will be broad. The theory could also alternatively focus on only in-role performance or only extra-role performance. In this case, the domain will be narrower than the domain of the theory of employees’ overall performance. Let us assume that the researcher seeks to focus on the narrower domain of employee extra-role performance. Now within extra-role performance, the researcher could focus on studying only a part of the reality of employee extra-role performance such as positive behaviors, which may be termed as organizational citizenship behaviors (for example, Organ, 1988) or negative behaviors, which may include political behaviors or destructive behaviors such as destroying company’s property (for example, Eastman and Pawar, 2005). Thus, a theory focusing on any of these three forms of extra-role performance will have much narrower domain than a theory focusing on overall performance or a theory focusing on in-role performance or a theory focusing on all forms of extra-role performance. Further, within positive extra-role performance, termed as organizational citizenship behaviors, a theory could focus on studying only a part of the reality of an employee’s positive extra-role performance or organizational citizenship behaviors. This theory could focus on studying positive extra-role behaviors directed toward a coworker such as helping coworkers, listening to coworkers’ problems, and so on, or positive extrarole behaviors directed at a supervisor such as helping the supervisor, accepting extra work from the supervisor, and so on, or positive extra-role behaviors directed at an organization such as tolerating inconveniences, making innovative suggestions for organizational improvement, and so on (for example, Barr and Pawar, 1995). A theory focusing on either of these three narrow forms of employees’ positive extra-role performance will have a narrower domain than a theory focusing on employees’ positive extra performance, which in turn will have a narrower domain than a theory focusing on employees’ extra-role performance (including both positive and negative forms of extra-role performance), which in turn will have a narrower domain than a theory focusing on employees’ overall performance (including in-role performance and extra-role performance). This progressive narrowing of the domain of theories focusing on representing the differently delimited reality or phenomenon of employees’ performance can be depicted in a diagram that hierarchically decomposes a broader domain (for example, employee performance) into narrower domains (for example, employee extra-role performance or employees’ positive extra-role performance).

Units of Theory

The aforesaid discussion describes how the domain of a theory indicates the scope of a theory in terms of the limited part of the reality that a theory seeks to represent. This interpretation of the domain of a theory suggests that depending on the domain of a theory, the aspects of the reality to be included for being represented in a theory will be determined. A theory with a broad domain will include a larger number of aspects of the reality than a theory with a narrow domain. Also, in a theory with a broad domain, because a larger number of aspects of the reality are included, the number of relationships included in a theory will also be larger since the relationships are between the aspects included in a theory. This suggests that the domain of a theory, by influencing the scope of a theory, influences the nature and number of aspects and relationships about the reality that are included in a theory. In this sense, the domain of a theory influences the “what” (the aspects) and “how” (the nature of relationships between the aspects) included in a theory. This interpretation of the domain of a theory emerging from the aforementioned discussion is consistent with Whetten’s (1989: 491) view that “what” and “how” aspects of a theory indicate its domain. It was noted earlier that a boundary separates the domain of a theory from what lies beyond the scope of a theory (Dubin, 1976: 24). In the above discussion, the boundary came from the conceptual narrowing or broadening of the phenomenon to be represented by a theory. This narrowing and broadening may be done through concept specification or through provision of a definition for a concept which will be discussed below in greater details. In such a case, the concept of “employee performance” can be defined in different ways to provide it different levels of inclusiveness. However, there are other ways of boundary specification. Bacharach (1989: 498) indicates that the assumptions of a theorist in forms such as a theorist’s values and specification of restrictions pertaining to time and space determine boundaries of a theory. In this sense, a theory could focus on a phenomenon bounded by space (or types of organizations such as Western organizations, legal organizations, economic organizations), time (for example, organizations establishing after the economic reform period), or assumptions/values about the nature of the phenomenon (rational systems versus social systems to be viewed as organizations). These boundaries reflect the range across which a theory is applicable or the range of the phenomena it seeks to explain. In this sense the domain and the boundaries forming the domain of a theory determine the generalizability or the range of applicability of a theory. Some examples from published research, where domain-related aspects have been considered, are outlined next.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Barr and Pawar (1995) indicated that the research in the area of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), which are non-reward-seeking, organization-benefiting, extra-role behaviors (Organ, 1988), has included different categories of OCBs in this single, broad domain of OCB. They suggested that this domain could be divided into three narrower domains formed by OCBs directed at an organization, OCBs directed at supervisors, and OCBs directed at coworkers. They also pointed out that predictors and explanatory mechanisms associated with these three forms of OCBs are likely to be different. In this sense they pointed out that the “what” (predictors), “how” (the relationships between OCB and its predictors) and “why” (the explanatory mechanisms) associated with each domain are likely to be different from those associated with other two domains. The previous example illustrates that a broader domain could be divided into multiple narrower domains and each of the narrower domains then could have a separate theory focusing on it. Other aspects as noted above based on Bacharach (1989: 498) that delimit a domain of a theory are the “space” or “assumptions about values” concerning the nature of organizations to which the theory applies. These aspects of domain are reflected in Folger and Konovsky (1989) who noted that in the “legal settings” distributive and procedural justice have been found to have differential effects on employee attitudes toward the specific outcomes and toward the institute and that this pattern of differential relationships has not been examined in “organizational contexts.” Based on this assessment, they examined whether this pattern of relationships also holds in a different domain (“organizational context”) from the original domain (“legal context” or “legal settings”). Here, these two domains can be viewed as separated by the nature or type of organizations (justice-dispensing organizations that can be labeled as “legal settings” versus economic goal-attaining organizations that can be labeled as “organizational context”). Thus, a relationship or a theory supported in one domain may not be applicable in another domain and its applicability to and generalizability across other domains may have to be ascertained through empirical assessment of the relationship in those domains.

Unit Two of a Theory: Concepts A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. A theory represents, in a simplified manner, various relevant aspects of a limited part of the reality. The representation of various aspects of the

Units of Theory

reality in a theory is done through labels or terms. For example, a part of the reality of employees’ overall performance is represented through or identified with a label “organizational citizenship behavior” or “positive behavior,” which represents the positive part of employees’ overall performance in organizations. Similarly, the self-serving part of employees’ overall performance in organizations can be represented with the label “political behaviors.” In Figure 1.1, two labels “positive behavior” and “political behavior” are used and their relationships with other label of “organizational commitment” are depicted. Labels such as “positive behavior,” “negative behavior,” and “organizational commitment” represent various aspects of the reality and are referred to as concepts. In this sense, concepts are labels or terms that seek to represent various aspects of the reality under study. A theory seeks to represent various aspects of the reality that exist in the real world that is outside the mind of a researcher who is developing a theory. These aspects of the reality are represented in the mind of the researcher in the form of conceptions. This is consistent with views that theories, which include concepts and their interrelationships, are inventions constructed by the theorist to represent or make sense out of the reality (for example, Dubin, 1976; Reynolds, 2005b; Weick, 1989). These aspects of the reality and the associated conceptions in the mind of a researcher are represented in the form of certain labels or terms in the vocabulary of science. Thus, three distinct but related elements can be noted here namely, the aspect of the reality to be examined, its conception in the mind of a researcher, and the term or label used for it in the vocabulary of science. The last of these three elements—the term or label—is a concept which has a meaning specified in accordance with the researcher’s conception and it typically relates, in some way, to some aspect of the empirical world. Concepts are thus labels or terms in the vocabulary of science, which are used to represent various aspects of the reality. The terms that seek to represent the various aspects of the reality being examined could relate to the reality either closely and concretely or distantly and indirectly. This different degree of directness of the relationship between a concept or a term/label and the actual aspect of the reality associated with the concept or term/label is reflected in Kaplan’s (1964) description of terms in which Kaplan (1964) divides terms into four categories with the first category reflecting a close connection of the term with an observable entity and the fourth category reflecting no connection of the term with a specific observable entity. The description in Kaplan (1964) suggests that

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

the first category of terms can be defined and/or applied on the basis of directly observable objects (for example, luxury car), the second category of terms can be defined and/or applied by on the basis of indirectly observable entities that may become observable through complex inferences or operations (for example, heart beats), the third category of terms define a phenomenon that does not exist as a concrete entity in the empirical world, but the phenomenon can be defined as a configuration of multiple observable entities (for example, cooperation), and the fourth category of terms is defined within a theoretical system rather than in reference to any observable entities (for example, self-esteem). Based on the description of various types of terms in Kaplan (1964), I will now illustrate a hypothetical example in which I take a single term—employee participation—and define it in four different ways with each definition seeking to correspond to one of the four categories of terms.

First Category of Terms The phenomenon of employee participation in organizations can be represented through the term “participation” as the first-category term if participation is defined as the number of suggestion boxes or the size of suggestion boxes in an organization. Suggestion box is the concrete object in terms of which the term “participation” is defined and the term “participation” can be applied in a given situation when one or more suggestion boxes are present in that situation.

Second Category of Terms The phenomenon of employee participation in organizations can be represented through the term “participation” as the second category term if participation is defined as: “The number of times phrases such as ‘decided’, ‘changed’, ‘influenced’, and ‘improved’ appear in an employee’s description of his activities, beyond the on-the-job activities, in an organization.” Based on this definition, if several employees are asked to write a page-long description of their activities in the organization, then each employee’s level of participation in an organization can be inferred from the number of occurrences of phrases such as “decided,” “changed,” “influenced,” and “improved” in each employee’s page-long description of his/her beyond-the-job activities in the organization. An employee whose

Units of Theory

written description contains such phrases more number of times than another employee can be inferred to have a higher level of participation in the organization than another employee. An assumption here is that the actions of deciding about, changing, influencing, or improving an aspect of an organization reflect an employee’s participation in an organization and that the employee’s participation is indirectly observable from his description of his activities by performing certain operations (for example, counting the occurrences of certain types of words and adding up the number of these occurrences). Thus, an assumption that higher participation level provided to employees is the cause of employees’ use of phrases such as “changed,” “influenced,” and “improved” is possibly associated with using the count of these phrases as an indirect observation about the level of employee participation.

Third Category of Terms As an example of the third category of terms, employee participation in organizations can be defined as the presence of participative organizational functioning consisting of features such as the presence of suggestion systems, high volume of suggestions received, significance of suggestions, extent of suggestion implementation, procedures for ensuring implementation of suggestions, and provision of reasons for non-implementation of suggestions. These features, according to this definition of the term “participative organizational functioning,” would collectively constitute participative organizational functioning. Participative organizational functioning is described as the collective presence of these aspects. A concrete and single entity of “suggestive organizational functioning” does not exist in reality. However, the various features, using which it is defined, can be directly or indirectly observed in the actual reality.

Fourth Category of Terms Participation, as the fourth category term, can be defined as “the external locus of control in suggestions” or “self-centered orientation in suggestions.” In this example, what is “the external locus of control in suggestions” or “self-centered orientation in suggestions” is defined only within a theoretical framework or theory. There is not any observable concrete entity in the real world in relation to which the meaning of these two terms can be defined.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

The aforesaid discussion is based on the description in Kaplan (1964) and it needs to be noted that the distinction between these four categories of terms outlined in Kaplan (1964) may be judgmental as there could be some overlap between various categories of terms. While the description in Kaplan (1964) suggests that all four categories of terms represent various ways of conceptualizing the phenomenon of interest and thus, all four categories of terms can be regarded as concepts, Kaplan (1964) uses the term “construct” to refer to the third category of terms described previously, indicating that constructs can be viewed as a particular category of terms or concepts.

DefiniƟons and DescripƟons of a Concept Now, some descriptions or definitions of concepts provided in the existing literature can be outlined. Kerlinger (1988: 26) suggests that concepts contain generalizations made from several particular instances and that because they represent generalizations, they are abstractions. Bacharach (1989: 500) suggests that constructs are such terms that the objects that they seek to represent cannot be observed either directly or indirectly but the terms can be defined or applied by referring to observables. Bacharach’s (1989) earlier outlined description of construct, because of its mention of the term not being observable either directly or indirectly but being amenable to being defined or applied in reference to observable aspects of the real world, seems to be similar to the third category of terms outlined previously. The description in Osigweh (1989: 583) suggests a distinction between two types of concepts—theoretical or universal concepts and empirical concepts. The description in Osigweh (1989: 583) suggests that the theoretical or universal concepts are specified as a part of a theoretical system. The description in Osigweh (1989: 583) also suggests that the meaning specification for empirical concepts, also referred to as observational concepts in Osigweh (1989), is defined in relation to observables and the meaning can be used at different levels of abstraction such as a concrete level and an abstract level. Based on this description in Osigweh (1989: 583), it can be suggested that the theoretical or universal type of concepts are somewhat similar to the fourth category of terms outlined previously, while empirical or observational concepts are somewhat similar to the first, second, and third category of concepts outlined previously.

Units of Theory

The aforementioned discussion and other literature on concepts suggest that a concept is a label or a term, it can have varying degrees of abstraction (indirectness in referring to reality), it seeks to represent some aspect of reality, and various instances in reality can be identified with it. In light of these aspects of a concept, a concept can be defined as a term or a label defined with some level of abstraction that forms a general idea with which a range of objects can be identified or represented. Thus, if the concept of “diligent employee” is a label, it would have an abstract definition specifying it in terms of features of a diligent employee, the label and the definition would form a general idea with which various observed instances of employees can be identified depending on their possessing various features that are implied by the general idea that the concept of “diligent employee” specifies.

Concepts and Constructs As noted earlier, in Kaplan’s (1964) description, the label “construct” is used to refer to the third-category terms while all the four categories of terms are “concepts.” This view suggests that constructs are a special kind of concept. Similarity and differences in the meaning of these two terms are reflected in the description in Kerlinger (1988: 26). Kerlinger (1988: 27) suggests that a construct is constructed or used as a part of a scientific activity and thus, has an additional meaning. Possibly, the additional meaning of a construct suggested by Kerlinger (1988: 27) is the meaning coming from the place or purpose of the concept in the associated theoretical framework or theory. The aforementioned discussion suggests that a “construct” is a particular type of “concept.” In literature, the terms “concept” and “construct” are at times used interchangeably and without suggesting any substantive distinction in what is being implied by them or at times they are used to refer to slightly different units of a theory. For example, Bacharach (1989: 500) uses mostly the label “construct” while Osigweh (1989: 583) uses only the label “concept.” Based on the previously outlined uses of the term “concept” and “construct,” the term “construct” seems to reflect what Osigweh (1989: 583) refers to as “theoretical or universal” concepts and the label “concepts” can be used to reflect what Osigweh (1989: 583) refers to as “observational or empirical” concepts. In contrast, Bacharach’s (1989) use of the label “construct” seems to partly correspond with what Osigweh (1989: 583)

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

refers to as “observational or empirical” concepts. Having noted the differences and relatedness between the terms “concept” and “construct,” and having indicated that different works in the literature suggest different views on their similarities and differences, only one term—concept—will be used in this book instead of making any distinction between different types of concepts or specifically between the words “concept” and “construct.” The aforementioned discussion indicates that concepts are terms or labels that at some level of abstraction indicate the features of the empirical world that they seek to represent. Based on the extent of directness or proximity with which various terms relate to the reality being examined, the terms could be classified in different categories.

Role of Concepts in Theory Building The focus of this book is on theory building for the specific purpose of hypothesis setting. Concepts are being described here as a part or unit of a theory. Concepts are terms that specify various aspects of the subject matter or phenomenon that the theory is dealing with. They form a part of “what” of a theory (Whetten, 1989: 490). Thus, in a part of the theory depicted in Figure 1.2, “organizational commitment,” “positive behavior,” and “political behaviors” are three concepts. Some of the roles of concepts in theory building are: 1. Concepts facilitate description and identification of various aspects of the reality. Once a definition is provided for a concept, a description of the features of the phenomenon represented by the concept is attained. For instance, once a definition of the concept of a “luxury car” or “diligent employee” is provided then the phenomenon in the real world referred to by these concepts (or by the terms associated with these concepts) gets described. In this way, concepts facilitate description of the various aspects of a phenomenon in the reality. Concepts also facilitate identification of various degrees of occurrences of the phenomenon defined by the concepts in the objects occurring in the reality. For instance, once a concept is specified to represent the phenomenon of employees’ political behavior, then various degrees of political behavior present in or associated with different individual employees can be identified. A particular employee is identified as performing or

Units of Theory

not performing political behavior or performing political behaviors to a certain extent depending on the extent to which the reality of his behavior corresponds with the meaning specified in the concept. The specification of the concept of “organizational commitment” allows description of what features should be present in an instance/ object (an employee in this example) for it to be identified as an employee with organizational commitment. 2. Concepts also facilitate classification of various occurrences in the reality. For example, once the concept of employees’ positive behavior is defined, behaviors that reflect this concept can be separated from behaviors that do not reflect this concept. As another example, once the concept of political activism is defined, a particular real-life incidence can be classified as belonging to the category of political activism or not belonging to it. The same can be seen through another example of loyalty as a concept. Different individuals can be classified as belonging to the category “loyal” or “not loyal.” This way, various occurrences in the reality can be classified into various classes. Consistent with this, Kaplan (1964) notes that concepts facilitate neat classification of the objects in nature. 3. Concepts also facilitate economy or parsimony in representing the reality. It needs to be noted that concepts are generalizations formed from particulars (Kerlinger, 1988: 26). Thus, concepts typically refer to the general meaning or conception that is conveyed by a term and not to a particular object. For instance, the concept “diligent employee” refers to what the diligent employees in general are, rather than referring to a particular diligent employee. Similarly, the concept of “loyalty” refers to what loyalty in general is, rather than loyalty of a particular individual. Through generalized representation of various aspects of the reality, concepts can facilitate the attainment of parsimony in representing the reality. Here the term “parsimony” can be understood as economy or simplicity in representation. A concept refers to a generalized conception rather than to a particular object or a particular instance of a phenomenon. Therefore, various objects or instances of a phenomenon can be represented by a concept. For instance, various employee behaviors such as a subordinate seeking undeserved performance ratings from a superior by using favor-rendering and a supervisor obtaining organizational rewards for a personally close but incompetent subordinate can be included in the concept

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

of political behaviors based on the extent to which these behaviors possess the features included in the specification of the “political behavior” concept. Similarly, the concept of “positive behavior” can be used to accommodate or represent the occurrences of several specific employee behaviors (for example, helping a coworker, preserving organizational property, making innovative suggestions, taking extra responsibility) occurring at different points in time and in different contexts. This allows representation of various aspects of the reality with a single and generalized term that is associated with the concept. Such a representation of various aspects of the reality with a single concept in the representation of the reality in its theory, allows parsimonious or economical representation of the reality that uses only a few terms to represent several aspects of the reality. Also, the representation of the various aspects of reality through a generalized conception reflected in a single concept allows a more simplified representation of the reality than a representation where each aspect of the reality (for example, various occurrences of positive behavior) was represented separately and not represented by the generalized conception of positive behavior. 4. Concepts serve an important purpose in facilitating a representation on a conceptual or abstract plane of the concrete reality that exists in the real world. Kaplan’s (1964) work suggests that concepts facilitate a movement from the plane of the empirical world to a theoretical or conceptual plane and they also facilitate the formation of relationship between a concept and other concepts. For instance, various concrete behaviors such as helping coworkers and taking extra responsibility are represented by the concept of positive behavior on the conceptual plane where these behaviors are regarded as indicators or instances of the concept of positive behavior or organizational citizenship behavior defined as organizationally beneficial and non-reward-seeking extra-role behaviors (for example, Organ, 1988). Once various aspects of the reality are specified as a concept on the conceptual plane, then the concept definition can be used to specify this concept’s connections with other concepts. The network of connections around this concept then forms a theory or a representation of the empirical realty on a conceptual plane. In this way, a concept, that represents an aspect of the empirical world, allows movement from an empirical plane to a conceptual plane. It also allows forming connections with other concepts around this concept in the conceptual plane.

Units of Theory

As an example of a concept’s role in facilitating the formation of relationships with other concepts, the concept of positive behaviors, through its defining features of organizationally beneficial and non-reward-seeking extra-role behaviors, can suggest connections with several other concepts. From these defining features of the concept of positive behavior, it can be inferred that the more employees feel that they are accepted and supported by an organization, the more they will perform positive behaviors toward the organization. If we assume that an organization’s provision of procedural justice provides a sense of acceptance to employees and organizational support provides to employees a feeling of being supported, then there will be a positive connection between procedural justice and positive behavior and a positive connection between organizational support and positive behavior. Such connections have been indeed noted and used by researchers (for example, Moorman et al., 1998) in actual theorizing to identify more complex relationships of positive behaviors (organizational citizenship behavior) with other concepts. Development of such connections between concepts on a conceptual plane is an important process in the overall theory building and hypothesis setting process. From this, the important role of concepts in the process of theory building and hypothesis setting can be seen. Concepts can have various levels of abstractness. The same term can be defined as a concept at a concrete level and as a concept at an abstract level. Based on the description in Kaplan (1964) of four types of terms, a concrete level of concept specification may be attained by defining a concept in terms of the first-category term outlined previously and an abstract level of concept specification can be obtained by defining a concept as a the third- or fourth-category term. This can be seen from the example of the single term “participation,” which was used in the preceding discussion of four categories of terms, defined as four different categories of terms yielding four definitions of the participation concept with varying levels of abstraction. Participation, as a concept, can be a concrete concept if it is defined at the level of the first-category term as the number of suggestion boxes or the size of suggestion boxes. Participation, as a concept, can be a relatively less concrete and more abstract concept if it is defined at the level of the second-category term as the number of times phrases such as “decided,” “changed,” “influenced,” and “improved” appear in an employee’s description of his activities, beyond the on-the-job activities, in an organization. Participation, as a concept, can be a somewhat more abstract concept if it is defined at the level of the third-category term as the

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

presence of participative organizational functioning consisting of features such as the presence of suggestion systems, high volume of suggestions received, significance of suggestions, extent of suggestions implementation, procedures for ensuring implementation of suggestions, and provision of reasons for non-implementation of suggestions. Participation, as a concept, can have even greater abstraction level if it is defined at the level of the fourth-category term as the external locus of control in suggestions or self-centered orientation in suggestions.

Abstractness of a Concept and Its ImplicaƟons As outlined earlier, a concept can be defined at different levels of abstractness. Definition of a concept as the first-category term will provide a lower level of abstractness in a concept than if the same concept is defined as the fourth-category term. The level of abstractness of a concept has several implications. First, theories seek to use generalized statements. Generalization in statements is facilitated by the abstractness of concepts. For instance, the concept of positive behavior represents a variety of behavioral instances such as helping coworkers, listening to the problems of coworkers, taking extra responsibility, making innovation suggestions, and preserving organizational property. With the abstract concept of positive behavior, separate concepts are not required for each of the specific behaviors such as helping coworkers or taking extra responsibility. Thus, a statement that includes the concept of positive behavior is a generalized statement because it addresses a range of behaviors. Therefore, abstraction in concepts lends a generalized level to a theory. It also allows a theory to be an abstract representation of the reality. Second, a theory is a simplified representation of the reality. A theory seeks to represent the complex real world through a simplified representation. Simplified representation of the reality would mean using a few concepts and a few connections between the concepts to represent the reality. Use of abstract concepts allows several aspects of the reality to be represented by a single concept as outlined in the previous example of the concept of positive behavior that represents various aspects of an employee’s behaviors. In this way, the abstractness of the concept of positive behavior facilitates a simplified representation of the reality. A simplified representation of the reality through a theory that uses a few concepts and a few relationships between them also makes the theory

Units of Theory

parsimonious or economical in the usage of concepts for representing various aspects of the reality. Third, the abstractness level will also have implications for the operationalizability of the concept. It is likely that it will be a more demanding task to identify operational indicators for a more abstract concept than for a less abstract concept. Thus, more abstract concepts may be more difficult to operationalize and, as a result, the process of obtaining their measure is likely to be more demanding.

Unit Three of a Theory: Variables In the preceding section, it was outlined that concepts represent various aspects of the reality on a conceptual plane. In the conceptual plane, relationships of a concept with other concepts can be formed on the basis of the definition of the concept. These connections will constitute a presumed view of the reality in the overall research process depicted in Figure 1.2. In the knowledge-generation process, more specifically, in the process of empirical verification, correspondence between the presumed view of the reality and the actual reality needs to be assessed. For such assessment, some measurable aspects or indicators in the reality need to be identified that are manifestations in the real world of the concepts in the conceptual plane. Such measurable aspects or indicators in the real world of the concepts in a conceptual plane are termed as variables. In light of Kaplanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1964) view that concepts facilitate a movement from the real world or empirical plane to a conceptual plane, variables can be seen as facilitating the reverse movement from a conceptual plane to an empirical plane. This movement is from the conceptual definition to empirical indicators observable in the real world. Some form of symmetry can be seen in the previous definitions of concepts and variables. Thus, a variable can be defined as an attribute that characterizes a concept or an empirical manifestation or indicator of a concept. Consistent with this, Dubin (1976: 23) refers to a variable as an empirically observable manifestation of a concept. A similar view is reflected in Bacharach (1989: 500). In light of these views, for example, age can be regarded as an attribute of the concept of youthfulness. Another example can be seen in an employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s number of compliances with organizational directives as an attribute of the concept of employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to the organization. An empirical indicator or manifestation of positive behavior is helping a

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

coworker who has extra workload. As the attribute or manifestation of a concept can be present in the empirical world in different levels of intensity, the variable associated with this attribute or manifestation would take different values reflecting these differing levels of intensity. Consistent with this, the description in Kerlinger (1988: 27) and Bacharach (1989: 500) indicates that a variable is a term or a symbol that can take various values. This can be seen through an example. If the word “age” represents a variable, then this variable can take different values such as 10 years, 50 years, or 70 years when indicating the actual age of the individuals whose age is sought to be measured through this variable. Thus, a symbol or a term associated with a variable can take different values for different objects depending on the magnitude of the attribute being measured by the variable present in different objects. These various definitions suggest that a variable is some aspect of the reality or phenomenon of interest that is given a label and that can take various values corresponding to the different degrees to which a property specified by the associated concept is present in an object. A variable, thus, can be viewed as a symbol or label which can take different values for different objects depending on the extent to which the property specified by a concept is present in different objects. Thus, like a concept that carries a label, a variable also carries a label. The meaning of the label of a concept comes from the definition provided for a concept, while the meaning or content of a variable comes from the various values it takes for various objects in the real world that possess, in varying levels, the attributes of a concept. There may be some mechanism, device, or operation that can measure the level of attribute in various objects in the reality and translate the attribute level into a corresponding value that the variable will take. Typically, in organizational studies a variable measures attributes of a concept through the use of a scale. A scale would contain a set of relevant statements termed as scale “items.” By obtaining ratings from an object on each item in the item set, the extent to which the relevant attributes are possessed by that object is assessed. For example, “organizational commitment” is a concept reflecting employees’ work-attitude. A set of statements that reflect or are manifestations of “organizational commitment” concept (for example, “I think about improving my organization’s public image,” “I introduce my organization as an ideal workplace”) can be provided to an employee and he is required to indicate the extent to which he agrees that his thoughts/feelings/behaviors are consistent with these statements (using response choices of “strongly agree,” “agree,”

Units of Theory

“neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Each response is given a value (in this case “strongly agree” could carry a value of 5, “agree” 4, “neither agree nor disagree” 3, “disagree” 2, and “strongly disagree” 1). Thus, the value associated with an employee’s response to each item can be added together across all items in the scale. This provides a “value” of the variable “organizational commitment,” which is a manifestation or indicator of the concept of “organizational commitment.” In this example, the concept and the variable are identified with the same label. However, organizational commitment as a concept outlines a generalized idea/meaning of organizational commitment whereas organizational commitment as a variable provides a measure of the extent to which organizational commitment manifests in a particular employee. As both a concept and the variable associated with it carry a label, typically both a concept and the associated variable carry the same label and hence, a concept and a variable may carry the same name. For example, the concept of commitment and a variable measuring commitment may be identified by the single label of “commitment.” However, from the context one may have to detect whether the label is referring to a variable or a concept. For example, when the “commitment” label is given a meaning through a definition, the label is referring to a concept and when the “commitment” label is referring to a score from the scale, then it is referring to a variable.

Unit Four of a Theory: DefiniƟonal Statements The concepts included in a theory are identified with labels. These labels are given meanings by the statements of definitions associated with these labels. Such statements defining the various concepts included in a theory would be a part of the inputs based on which the conjectures (propositions and hypotheses), which constitute an output of a theory, in a theory are specified. The label and the associated definition jointly constitute the concept specification. Concepts and associated terms or labels can be used to identify objects in the real world that reflect the occurrences of the phenomenon represented or conceptualized by the concept on the basis of the definition of the concept (for example, Copi and Cohen, 2002; Osigweh, 1989). Kerlinger (1988: 28) outlines two types of definitions, namely, constitutive definition and operational definition. The description in Kerlinger (1988: 28) suggests that when a term is defined using other terms then the

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

resulting definition is a constitutive definition for the term being defined. It also indicates that an operational definition of a term is in the form of specification of the operations or procedures that a researcher will adopt in order to measure the extent to which the attribute being represented by the term is present in different objects. In light of the foregoing discussion of these two types of definitions, hypothetical examples are outlined next to indicate how these types of definitions may be specified. An example of the constitutive definition of the “organizational commitment” concept could be “commitment is the level of an employee’s acceptance of an organization’s goals.” In this definition, the meaning of the term commitment is specified through the use of other terms of “acceptance” and “organizational goals.” As an example of operational definition, commitment could be specified as: “Commitment is the score of the responses to the following three questions/items answered in a self-report format by an employee.” This specification would include a set of questions/items following it. This would provide a score for each level of commitment present in each of the employees. As another example of operational definition, commitment can be specified as: “Commitment is the amount of pay reduction an employee is willing to accept in the current pay reduction scheme of an organization without deciding to quit the organization because of that reduced pay level.” As yet another example of operational definition, the concept of organizational commitment could be defined as: “Commitment is the level of pay raise that an employee declines from alternative job offers in order to retain the membership of the present organization.” The various aspects such as the level of abstractness and the level of term type a term is to be defined at—first category to fourth category—may become relevant at this stage when one defines a concept because a concept could be defined with different levels of direct reference to observables. The example of various definitions of the concept of participation outlined earlier illustrates this.

Unit Five of a Theory: Premises A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. For developing such a representation about a phenomenon in reality, certain plausible relationships between various features or aspects of the phenomenon need to be specified. However, to derive such plausible

Units of Theory

relationships between various features of the phenomenon, certain assumptions about the nature of the phenomenon may need to be made. Let us consider this in light of the relationships specified in Figure 1.1. Suppose that a researcher is doing the task of theory building to specify a relationship between “organizational commitment” and “positive behavior.” The two concepts involved here are employees’ “organizational commitment” and employees’ “positive behavior.” By definitions, employees’ “organizational commitment” is a positive attitude toward an organization and employees’ “positive behavior” are positive actions toward an organization. We infer this by reading the definitions we adopted or specified for these two concepts. Then the premises needed to derive a relationship between “organizational commitment” and “positive behavior” concepts are: (i) individuals’ actions toward an object are influenced by their attitudes toward the object and (ii) positive attitudes toward an object result in positive actions toward the object. Using these two premises and drawing on the definitions of these concepts, which indicated that “organizational commitment” is a positive attitude toward an organization and “positive behavior” is positive actions toward an organization, one can deduce that there would be a positive relationship between employees’ “organizational commitment” and “positive behavior.” Dubin (1976: 23) uses the term “laws of interaction” and the associated description in Dubin (1976: 23) suggests that laws of interaction describe how the different units of a theory such as concepts interact in relation to each other. The description of “laws of interaction” and of propositions included in Dubin (1976: 23) suggests that laws of interaction may form one of the bases of propositions. In this sense, “laws of interaction” referred to in Dubin (1976: 23) may serve as a set of premises for yielding conjectures or propositions of a theory. In light of this, the term “premises,” in the sense it is used previously, can partly reflect, to some extent, what is termed as “laws of interaction” in Dubin (1976: 23) because conjectures or propositions in a theory are logically derived from or are logical implications of the premises and, thus, premises serve as one of the bases of a theory’s conjectures or propositions. The description in Whetten (1989: 494) suggests that the adoption of assumptions that are reasonable and their explicit specification is a necessary part of theory-building process and that the premises constitute a foundation of a theory. In terms of Figure 1.2 depicting the overall research process, premises form a basis on which the view of the presumed reality is developed. The importance of assumptions or premises of a

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

theory is reflected in Whetten‘s (1989: 493) description, which suggests that the premises or assumptions of a theory constitute a foundation or a theoretical bonding element of a theory and their soundness influences the reasonableness that will be accorded to the conceptualization of the reality represented by a theory, whereas their unrealistic nature may result in the theory getting questioned. Premises can come in various forms. For instance, some premises may be empirical findings coming from a number of studies. Some premises may be accepted principles in a particular body of knowledge. Some premises may be just theoretical views suggested by one or more researchers in the field. Some could be merely assumptions made by a researcher. While a theory can contain various such types of premises, it is likely that the plausibility of a theory, in the absence of or pending empirical verification, may depend on the nature of premises (along with validity of logic) used in it. For example, all other things being equal, a theory that uses only conjectures of other researchers as its premises may invite more doubts about its plausibility than a theory that uses only established principles as its premises.

Unit Six of a Theory: ProposiƟons Theories are sets of systematically interrelated statements. Theories contain various types of statements. Some of these are statements of assumptions and statements of definitions as outlined previously, while others are propositions or hypotheses. Propositions are a special type of statements in a theory. Propositions are statements specifying conjectural relationships between concepts. For example, the statement depicted in Figure 1.1 that “employees’ organizational commitment will be positively associated with employees’ positive behavior” is a proposition. The statement specifies a relationship that is conjectural in the sense that its truth value is unknown at the time it is specified. It is not known whether the relationship specified in the proposition actually exists in the empirical world. Consistent with this, Dubin (1976: 23) refers to propositions of a model or theory as deductions that are logically derived from a model or theory and also indicates that a proposition represents a true deduction, possibly suggesting that it is logically true in light of the premises and associated reasoning. The statement of a proposition is only a statement of prediction or conjectural statement about what is likely to be observed in the actual

Units of Theory

reality if there is a correspondence between the actual reality and the presumed reality from which the conjecture is generated or of which it is a part. It is only logically true if its specification is based on a procedure that follows the rules of valid logical reasoning. Whether the statement is empirically true, that is, whether the relationship specified in the conjecture actually exists in the empirical world needs to be determined through the subsequent empirical investigation through the steps outlined in parts after the “conjectures” part in Figure 1.2. The relationships specified in conjectures could be of various types. Some of these could be relationships specifying association. For example, a statement could specify that there is a positive relationship between employees’ organizational commitment and employees’ positive behavior. This is a statement specifying just the presence of a positive relationship between the two concepts included in it. Some of the relationships specified in a proposition could also be causal relationships. For example, a statement could specify that employees’ organizational commitment results in or causes employees’ positive behavior. This is a statement specifying a causal relationship between the two concepts included in it. Thus, propositions can be statements of relationships or statements of causality. These two examples illustrated positive association and positive causal relationship depicted respectively in two propositions. While these examples outlined only positive relationships specified in a proposition, the relationships of association or causality depicted in a proposition could be positive or negative. For instance, a proposition that there would be negative relationship between employees’ organizational commitment and employees’ political behavior and a proposition that organizational commitment results in or induces a reduction in employees’ political behavior are such two statements specifying negative association and negative causal relationship respectively. A proposition could be regarded as an output of a theory. At times, a pictorial depiction of a theory as a model is done by specifying connections between various concepts. In such a pictorial representation, the connections between the concepts are propositions. For example, in the theoretical model depicted in Figure 1.1, the two connections represent two propositions.

Unit Seven of a Theory: Hypotheses A hypothesis is a conjectural statement about the relationship between variables (for example, Bacharach, 1989: 500). Hypotheses are linked to

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

propositions. As discussed earlier, propositions are statements specifying relationships between concepts. When the concepts in propositions are replaced with corresponding variables, the resulting statement is a hypothesis (for example, Dubin, 1976). In this way, a hypothesis can be said to be a prediction statement derived by replacing concepts of a proposition by measurable/empirical indicators (variables) for those concepts. As an example, the statement “organizational commitment is positively related to positive behavior” is a proposition because the terms “organizational commitment” and “positive behavior” are concepts. The statement “‘organizational commitment score’ will be positively related to the ‘positive behavior score’” is a hypothesis because the terms “organizational commitment score” and “positive behavior score” are variables that take different numerical values in the form of scores obtained from two scales that measure the two concepts of organizational commitment and positive behavior. As described earlier, in practice the same label or term is used to identify a concept as well as the variable/indicator set associated with the measurement of the concept. That is, the label “organizational commitment” can refer to the concept “organizational commitment” and also to a particular scale that provides a measure of this concept. Therefore, at times the same statement could be a proposition or a hypothesis depending on whether the terms connected in the statement reflect concepts or variables. In such circumstances, paying attention to the context of the statement may help in determining whether the statement is a proposition or a hypothesis. For instance, if the terms in the statement refer to the measurements obtained or to be obtained then the statement is likely be a hypothesis, while if the terms in the statement refer to concepts with no reference to the measurement issues, then it is likely to be a proposition. Typically, a proposition will be an output of a theory-building process. Dubin (1976: 23) refers to the part of the theory-building process up to proposition specification as the theoretical part of the cycle consisting of two parts namely, theory and research. Thus, a theoretical or conceptual paper could generate a proposition as its outcome and outline research and practice implications of the propositions, and such paper would constitute a complete theoretical or conceptual paper. For example, a theoretical or conceptual paper by Liden and Mitchell (1988) specified a set of propositions concerning employees’ ingratiatory behaviors. When the proposition is to be taken up for empirical verification then measurements need to be obtained for

Units of Theory

the concepts. Thus, a proposition may be converted to a hypothesis by assigning measurable indicators to concepts prior to or as a part of the empirical verification process. An implication of this is that the same proposition can be tested through multiple hypotheses, each having a different set of measures or measurable indicators for the set of concepts in the proposition. Consistent with this, Dubin (1976: 30) notes that when a new empirical indicator is used for a concept contained in a proposition, a new hypothesis containing that indicator gets formed. Thus, it is feasible to have several hypotheses corresponding to a proposition if there are multiple indicators associated with a concept contained in the proposition. There is another way in which the proposition–hypothesis relationship suggests that a hypothesis is an implication derived from a proposition. In this sense, a hypothesis can be seen as a conjecture about observables drawn from a conjecture of relationship between the concepts that are included in a theory. A hypothesis can also be viewed as an empirically verifiable implication of a proposition. In this sense, a proposition represents relationships between concepts and is a part of a theory. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an implication of a proposition about what will be observed in the actual reality if the proposition were to be valid. Thus, it is likely that multiple implications can be derived about the reality from a single statement of relationship between concepts in a theory. In this sense, a hypothesis can be seen as a more specific conjecture derived from a proposition. In the discussion in Kerlinger (1988: 18), the terms “proposition” and “hypothesis” are used interchangeably though a difference between them is also indicated by suggesting that a proposition is a “broad” statement of relationship whereas a hypothesis is a more specific statement of relationship derived from a proposition. Consistent with this view of the proposition–hypothesis relationship, House (1971), in outlining a path goal theory of leadership, specifies certain general propositions and then specifies several more specific hypotheses based on these propositions. If several implications or hypotheses about the reality can be derived from a single proposition of a theory, then the theory can be said to represent the reality with a few propositions. Such a theory can be regarded as providing an economical or parsimonious representation of the reality. This seems to be reflected in Bacharach’s (1989) definition of parsimony as the ratio of hypotheses to propositions. This view of parsimony suggests that if more number of hypotheses can be derived from propositions

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

of a theory than from the same number of propositions in another theory representing the same reality, then the former theory will be more parsimonious than the latter. As a theory seeks to provide a simplified representation of reality, a parsimonious theory will provide a more simplified representation of the reality as it will have fewer propositions than a theory that represents the same reality with a larger number of propositions. The theory-building process, as a conceptual work, can end with propositions. Hypotheses can be drawn out of the propositions at a later stage of empirical verifications. In terms of the conceptual research and empirical research categories outlined earlier, conceptual research can end with the specification of a set of propositions (though not all conceptual research works will result in propositions as outcomes because some could just do evaluation and synthesis of the existing findings, literature, theories, and so on) and empirical research can begin with a set of hypothesis. However, in conceptual research papers, reviewers may require the authors to outline the operationalizability of the concepts in the propositions of their paper or to indicate the testability of the propositions. Thus, while specifying a proposition, it may be appropriate to pay attention to the operationalizability of the concepts in the proposition and testability of the proposition. In the previous description, the interchangeable use of the terms “proposition” and “hypothesis” observed in Kerlinger (1988) was noted. The following few comments concerning the practice in the use of terms “propositions” and “hypotheses” may be of help. There are differences in the practice in using the terms propositions and hypotheses. For example, Liden and Mitchell (1988) specify propositions as a part of their conceptual paper. House (1971) specifies general propositions and from them derives specific hypotheses. Both these practices are consistent with the views of the distinction between propositions and hypotheses. However, Hage (1965: 289–299) derived seven propositions drawing on other models. He then derived 21 statements that he labeled as “corollaries” from them and specified one more boundary proposition. Subsequently, he used the label “hypotheses” to refer to the all these 28 statements that were initially labeled as either propositions or corollaries. Conger and Kanungo (1987) used the label “hypothesis” for identifying the conjectures in their conceptual paper. However, some of the conjectures in Conger and Kanungo (1987) seem to be too broad to be tested directly and may need to converted into more specific and testable hypotheses suggesting that the label “proposition”

Units of Theory

rather than the label “hypothesis” may be a more appropriate identifier for these conjectures. Thus, the distinction between a proposition and hypothesis does not seem to be strictly observed in practice. At times, hypotheses in an empirical paper are actually propositions as they specify relationships between concepts, but they are labeled as hypothesis because in the methods part of these papers, these concepts are measured using certain scales which constitute variables corresponding to the concepts included in the statements labeled as “hypotheses.” Thus, statements containing concepts (which should ideally be called “propositions”), which are operationalizable or are measured subsequently in the empirical examination part of a research paper, seem to be called “hypotheses.” As outlined earlier, the same label (for example, “commitment” or “positive behavior”) is used to refer to concepts when a conjecture or prediction is theorized and to refer to a variable when a scale is used to measure the concept and when the measured value’s relationship with other variables is being examined. Thus, the same statement (for example, commitment is positively associated with positive behavior) can be a labeled as a “proposition” when the labels “commitment” and “positive behavior” refer to concepts and labeled as a “hypothesis” when the labels “commitment” and “positive behavior” refer to measurement/scales. Following the strict distinction outlined in works such as Bacharach (1989) between a proposition and a hypothesis would require that the same statement be labeled as a “proposition” when the units in it refer to “concepts” and as a “hypothesis” when the units in it refer to “variables.” A balance of this strict view and the observed practice would suggest that a statement of relationship between two concepts is more appropriately labeled as a “proposition.” A statement of relationships between concepts may be labeled as a “hypothesis” when the concepts are operationalizable in the sense measures for these concepts already exist or these concepts are operationalized in the subsequent part of a research paper through the use of certain measures or scales.

Summary A theory consists of various units. Seven units considered in this chapter are: (i) domain, (ii) concepts, (iii) variables, (iv) definitional statements, (v) premises, (vi) propositions, and (vii) hypotheses. A theory seeks to provide a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

The domain of a theory reflects the limited part of the reality to be represented by a theory. The boundary of a theory is formed by the specification of time and space parameters and the assumptions about the phenomenon being examined and sets the limits of a theory’s domain or marks a theory’s domain. The domain may also be determined by adjusting the scope of the phenomenon to be covered by a theory through the suitably delimited specification of the concept definition that sets the limits on the parts of the phenomenon to be focused on by a theory. Concepts are terms that represent, on a conceptual plane, various aspects of the phenomenon sought to be represented by a theory. The meaning of the terms is specified through definitions associated with the concepts. Such definitional statements also form parts of a theory. Variables are observable or measurable indicators of concepts. Premises allow the making of certain assumptions about the nature of the phenomenon or reality represented by a theory and may also come from established principles, findings from several studies, conjectures in the literature, and so on. These constitute the understructure or foundation of a theory. Propositions specify relationships between various concepts in a theory and, hence, are statements from and about a theory or representation of the reality. These relationships seek to represent the connections between the corresponding aspects in the reality. These are logically true statements derived from the premises. Hypotheses are statements specified in the propositions in which concepts are replaced by corresponding variables. Variables and hypotheses need not be a part of a theory that is an outcome of a conceptual work. These become relevant at the stage of empirical verification of a theory. Variables are measurable counterparts of a concept. In this sense, a hypothesis is obtained through the conversion of a proposition and the conversion process involves replacing concepts in a proposition with corresponding variables. Another way in which the proposition–hypothesis relationship can be considered is that a hypothesis is an implication derived from a proposition. In this sense, a hypothesis can be seen as a more specific conjecture about observables drawn from a broader conjecture of relationship between concepts that are included in a theory. These various units of a theory provide a representation of the reality and provide conjectures (hypotheses) about what is likely to be observed in the reality based on the representation. An approximate interrelationship between these aspects of a theory is depicted in Figure 4.1.

Units of Theory

FIGURE 4.1 A Possible Set of InterrelaƟonships between Various Units of a Theory

Notes: 1. Only the items mentioned in elliptical circles are discussed in this chapter as units of theory. The “logical reasoning” part shown in the figure is not explicitly discussed as a unit of a theory in this chapter, but is used in the process of deriving conjectures as outlined in the next chapter. 2. This entire diagram can occupy two elements—presumed reality and conjectures— depicted in Figure 1.2

Some Aspects of the Process of Theory Building for Hypothesis Specifica on

he preceding chapter described various units of theory. This chapter outlines some aspects of the actual process of theory building resulting in the specification of a hypothesis. As indicated in Chapter 1, the approach of this book is to focus on outlining theory building for specification of hypotheses rather than theory building for developing complete theories (for example, a theory of transformational leadership [Bass, 1985], path goal theory of leadership [House, 1971]). Various justifications for this focus are also outlined in Chapter 1. Though this book focuses on theory building for specifying hypotheses, various inputs outlined in this book for theory building for specifying hypotheses can be extended to develop more complete theories. A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. The process of actually constructing a representation involves making decisions about and developing several units of a theory. Some aspects of this process are outlined in this chapter. Some similar-meaning terms such as “theory,” “model,” “theoretical model,” “theoretical perspective,” and “theoretical view” may be used in this chapter. These similar terms are used to refer to the single entity of a theory.

Deciding on the Aspects of the Reality to be Represented and the Domain As a theory seeks to provide a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality, one of the first decisions will be to identify the aspect of

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

the reality to be represented by a theory. This would be partly influenced by a researcher’s areas of interest. This would also be influenced by the existing body of knowledge available about the relevant reality and the areas where knowledge development is required. For instance, in the reality of employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors, which is a form of positive behaviors, a researcher may decide to focus on developing a hypothesis outlining the effect of personality-related aspects on organizational citizenship behaviors or a hypothesis outlining the effect of organizational aspects depending on which aspect of the reality—personality aspects influencing the occurrence of organizational citizenship behaviors or organizational aspects influencing the occurrence of organizational citizenship behaviors—have been inadequately understood and hence, need to be examined. Within the aspect of the reality to be studied, a researcher can further decide on the scope of the domain. For example, for the reality of employee performance, various domains of different breadths can be identified as discussed earlier. A researcher can make a choice of a domain and then justify the choice by referring to relevant literature. For instance, Pawar and Eastman (1997: 82–83), in their conceptual paper, focused on the topic of “contextual influence on transformational leadership,” which is a part in the larger area of organizational change. Pawar and Eastman (1997: 82–83) noted that out of three aspects of organizational change—content, process, and context—they had decided to focus on the third aspect and provided a justification for this choice of narrow scope within the larger area of organizational change by indicating that the content and process parts of the change had been addressed in the existing research while the context part was not. Referring to the existing literature, they also indicated that the context part is both significant and overlooked. By focusing on a narrow aspect, the scope and thereby the domain of the theory was made limited. A researcher can exercise some choice in the identification of the research topic and the restriction of the scope of the phenomenon within the research topic. However, this needs to be justified in light of the relevant research and literature. The justification can come from indicating that the developing of a theory about a part of the research topic will fill a knowledge gap in the existing research and that this will make reasonable or significant contribution to the existing body of research.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Concept Specifica on and Specifica on of Defini onal Statements Within a domain of the reality reflecting a research topic identified for a theory, there will be various aspects of the reality that a researcher will need to include in the theory or representation of the reality to be provided by a theory. These aspects of the reality will be represented as concepts. Good concept specification is vital to the subsequent theory-development process (Kaplan, 1964; Osigweh, 1989) as concepts serve various functions in the theorizing process as outlined earlier. Hence appropriate concept specification is essential for good theory-building activity. It was outlined earlier that discussion in Kerlinger (1988) suggests that a concept can be specified through a constitutive definition or through an operational definition. Constitutive definition is more often used in concept specification. This involves specifying a concept using other terms. One way to do this is to define a term using other terms that have similar meanings. Thus, organizational commitment concept may be defined as an “employee’s sense of attachment to an organization.” Another way to provide a constitutive definition is method of genus and difference (Copi and Cohen, 2002: 122; Hurley, 2003: 99). The method of genus and difference involves indicating a broader class of objects that the term being defined is a part of and then outlining those attributes of it that distinguish it from other objects in that broader class (Copi and Cohen, 2002: 123; Hurley, 2003: 99). As a hypothetical example of the method of genus and difference, the term extra-role behavior identifies those employee behaviors that are not specified as a part of an employee’s formal job requirements. Organizational citizenship behaviors are one specific category of extra-role behaviors because they are performed for benefiting the organization and without seeking rewards for oneself (for example, Organ, 1988). This specific category differs from another specific category of extra-role behaviors—negative behaviors—that are extra role in nature, but could have organization-harming consequences (for example, Eastman and Pawar, 2005). In this example, the extra-role behavior category can be viewed as the broader set or genus in which the specific categories of organizational citizenship behavior and negative behavior are distinguished from one another on the basis of the difference in their consequences. Thus, extra-role nature is the generic attribute possessed by both specific categories whereas organization-benefiting and organization-harming

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

consequences is the unique attribute or differentiating attribute possessed by organizational citizenship-behavior and negative-behavior categories respectively. As noted earlier, through the use of the example of participation concept, the same concept can be defined at different levels of abstraction and this has implications for the research process. Thus, in choosing other terms to provide a definition for a concept, various implications of a given level of abstraction need to be considered. The foregoing discussion outlines the theoretical aspects of concept specification. Various aspects of the practice of concept specification can be noted by paying attention to various aspects of concept specification in the published literature. Specification of new concepts through the provision of concept definitions or adoption of existing concepts along with their definitions will constitute specification of definitional statements. As described earlier, concepts can be defined at various levels of abstraction and corresponding to different levels of relationships with the reality. As discussed earlier, concepts can be defined at the level of four categories of terms ranging from the first category to the fourth category. A researcher can choose the level of abstractness and the corresponding directness of the relationship with the reality that a concept specification will have. Observations of the research published in scholarly journals indicate a few options available to a researcher. First, a researcher can adopt a definition of a concept from the existing literature. When this is done, a researcher typically provides citations to original research works that specified the definition. Second, when there are multiple existing definitions, a researcher can summarize his understanding of the central features of multiple existing definitions and then adopt the most extensively used definition from them or provide a definition that is reflective of the central features that are common to multiple definitions. Third, a researcher also has some choice in providing a particular definition for a concept and researchers seem to, some extent, use this available choice in practice. This is reflected in multiple definitions that are available for various concepts. For example, Morrow (1983: 486), in reviewing commitment-related concepts, noted more than 25 concepts and measures related to commitment. Variations of definitions are available in the published research using the concept of organizational commitment. Let us consider an example where researchers proposed a new set of definitions for the concept of organizational commitment. Mayer and Schoorman (1992) specified a new specification of the organizational commitment concept by defining two separate forms of

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

organizational commitment. Mayer and Schoorman (1992: 672), in outlining their definitions for two forms of commitment, first outlined an existing definition of organizational commitment. Then they defined two forms of organizational commitment—value commitment and continuance commitment—in their paper (1992: 673). In the early part of their paper preceding the part where they specified the definitions of these two forms of commitment, they described why it might be useful to view commitment as consisting of two different dimensions of organizational commitment labeled as “value commitment” and “continuance commitment” in the aforementioned definitions. Thus, in the process of providing concept specifications for two forms of commitment, the authors described why it would be appropriate to define two distinct forms of commitment, described one extensively used existing definition of organizational commitment, and then provided the definitions for each of the two forms of organizational commitment. In practice, when a researcher is specifying a new definition for a concept, it may be appropriate for the researcher to describe his comprehensive understanding of the specification of the same concept or related concepts in the existing literature, describe a need for an improved or new concept specification, and then provide a new concept specification. Further, providing some justification for the improved or new concept specification may also be appropriate. Such justification, for instance, can come from greater suitability of the new concept specification for the proposed research study or it being free of some of the inadequacies associated with the existing concept specifications. Sometimes, difficulties with a concept remain for a long time after its adoption and extensive use in the research. For example, Organ (1988) specified the concept of organizational citizenship behavior in a particular way and the concept came to be extensively used in the subsequent research. However, about a decade after the initial specification of the concept, Organ (1997: 85) noted that the process of concept specification is never complete, possibly implying that efforts to make a concept specification more adequate may continue in research after the initial specification of the concept. Organ (1997: 85) thus outlined the need to reconsider some aspects including those pertaining to the specification of organizational citizenship behavior concept. This instance from the published research literature on a concept suggests that a concept specification may not be completely adequate though it may get extensively used in research, adequacy of a concept specification is a matter of degree, and the process of making a concept specification more adequate can go on.

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

Thus, researchers can adopt an existing concept definition as it is, if doing so meets their research requirements. They also have a choice in specifying a concept in their own particular way. However, researchers typically provide a justification for their choice by referring to the consistency of their specification for a concept with the other specifications available for the same concept in the existing literature. They also can choose different specifications for a concept than those provided in the existing literature and provide a justification for their choice. At times, researchers do extensive literature review to point out how a different concept specification is more appropriate and justify their own proposed different specification by drawing on the existing literature. At times, inadequacies in the existing definition of a concept are noted and a broader (for example, a broad specification of organizational citizenship behavior in Van Dyne et al., 1994) or a narrower concept definition is provided. For providing a specification for a new concept, researchers may undertake an extensive literature review to identify the key features of the phenomenon that the concept refers to. Sometimes, a new concept is defined in relation to a similar concept or in relation to a contrasting concept. For instance, a concept pertaining to negative forms of employee behaviors can be defined in relation to some similar concept of negative behaviors in general social settings such as anti-community behaviors. Alternatively, a concept pertaining to negative forms of employee behavior can be defined by highlighting its contrast with positive forms of employee behaviors. The previously outlined theoretical aspects and observations about practice can provide certain relevant inputs for concept specification. In addition, some considerations can be paid attention to. It is appropriate for a concept to be abstract enough so that it constitutes a generalization and, hence, by facilitating generalized statements contributes to the specification of a parsimonious representation of reality. A concept’s meaning needs to be adequately clear so the concept’s relationships with other concepts can be formed and hence, the ordering at a conceptual level of the aspects of empirical world represented by various concepts is facilitated and a concept’s operationalization into measurable indicators is feasible. Bacharach’s (1989) work suggests that a good concept specification is characterized by aspects including adequate scope for representing the aspect of the reality it seeks to represent and adequate clarity. The guidelines provided by Copi and Cohen (2002: 125–128, 135) for specifying definitions by genus and difference and by Hurley (2003: 104–108) for

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

specifying lexical definitions include these qualities suggested in Bacharach (1989) and suggest additional qualities such as inclusion of the basic characteristics of the objects to which the term being defined, refers; non-inclusion of the term being defined in the definition statement for the term; and avoidance, when feasible, of the use of word “not” for definition provision (because it is not possible to identify all objects that a concept is “not”). Thus, in the actual process, a researcher would determine the aspect of the empirical world that he/she seeks to represent. Its relevant attributes can be identified by studying the relevant literature and/or by making observations in the empirical world. However, it seems appropriate for a researcher to outline a justification for indicating the attributes included in the definition as the relevant attributes. Then existing definitions for the concept, where available, can be studied and evaluated to decide if any one or more of them can be adopted or adapted. If the concept needs to be defined afresh because of non-existent definitions or because the existing definitions are inadequate, then a constitutive definition (Kerlinger, 1988) can be specified in light of the essential or main features of the aspect of the reality that a concept seeks to represent. The method of genus and difference (Copi and Cohen, 2002; Hurley, 2003) provides one of the ways of specifying definitions in which a broader class of objects is identified first and then the objects denoted by a term being defined are distinguished from other objects in the broader class through the specification of additional attributes. The aforementioned examples and guidelines can facilitate this process.

Other Approaches to Concept Specifica on The foregoing description of the concept-specification process focused on specifying concepts through the provision of a definition. However, there are some other approaches through which a concept can be specified.

Typology as an Approach to Concept SpecificaƟon There are different definitions outlining what a typology is and views differ in terms of what constitutes a typology. A typology is a conceptually specified classification scheme (for example, Hambrick, 1984: 28).

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

A typology is specified using a set of dimensions. Each dimension can have two or more values, typically identified as a high value and a low value. By combining two or more dimensions, a set of classes are formed in a typology. A hypothetical example of a typology is outlined in Figure 5.1. This hypothetical example uses two dimensions—employees’ commitment to an organization and employees’ ability for the tasks to be performed in an organization. Each dimension has two values—low and high. The four cells resulting from the combination of these two dimensions represent four concepts that reflect four different types of employees. For each of the resulting four concepts that represent four classes or types of employees, a concept definition can be provided based on the combination of dimension values that are associated with the cell which identifies that concept. For instance, the concept of committed presence can be defined as employees who have high commitment to an organization, but have low ability to perform their tasks. Hence, the committed presence type of employees can provide only committed presence to the organization. Similarly, the concept of committed resource can be defined as employees who have high commitment to an organization as well as high ability to perform their tasks. Hence, they can provide committed resources to an organization. In a similar manner, the other two concepts— unattached resource and unattached presence—can also be defined. FIGURE 5.1 A Hypothe cal Example of a Typology of Diﬀerent Employee Types

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Each class formed by a unique combination of the values of the typology’s dimensions is at times called a type in the typology. Each class is provided with a label. The definition and conceptual meaning of the label comes from the unique combination of values on the dimensions forming a typology. Two elements—label and meaning—jointly provide specification for a concept, which is identified with the label. Thus, each class or cell in a typology provides a label for a concept and outlines the meaning of the concept (from the combination of dimension values). The classes in a typology collectively constitute a set of conceptually interrelated concepts. In the previously outlined hypothetical example of the typology of different employee types, the four classes provide a set of four interrelated concepts. These may be referred to as typological concepts as they are specified through a typology. The typology formed by the combination of conceptual dimensions can be said to outline a conceptual space. In this sense, the concepts associated with various cells/ classes in a typology get related to each other in the conceptual space. Since each concept specified in a typology has a meaning defined in terms of the value combinations of the dimensions used to form a typology, various objects observed in the reality can be placed in different classes of the typology based on the match between the features of an object and the meaning associated with the typological concept which is associated with a particular class of the typology. In this way, a typology outlines a classification scheme in which various occurrences or objects from the relevant set of objects in the reality can be classified. The literature (for example, Doly and Glick, 1994) in this area suggests that as a classification scheme, typologies need to fulfill some requirements. The first requirement is that the classes in a typology should constitute a mutually exclusive set of classes. They should classify the objects from the empirical world in mutually exclusive classes. Each object from the empirical world should be placed in only one class. This suggests that the attribute set for the classification of an object in a class should be clearly specified. This also suggests that these attribute sets associated with different classes in a typology should be non-overlapping and mutually exclusive. Another requirement is that the objects within a class should be homogenous. This suggests that the objects placed in a class should be similar to each other or more similar to each other than to the objects in other classes. Another requirement is that of collective exhaustiveness. This requirement suggests that all the objects in the relevant set (universe) should be amenable to being placed in the classes in a typology. Each object in the relevant set or universe

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

should find a place in one or another class in the typology. The classes in a typology should collectively exhaust the objects from the relevant set of objects. The previous discussion covered typologies that are conceptual classifications. Classification schemes that are derived empirically are termed as taxonomies (for example, Hambrick, 1984: 28). For example, for specifying a taxonomy of organizations, a researcher may identify a set of relevant organizational features or dimensions. Then he may collect data on a sample of several organizations on these organizational features or dimensions. Using this data, a researcher may use some statistical procedure to identify an appropriate set of clusters or groupings in the sample of organizations studied. A separate label could be assigned to each cluster in the set of clusters or groupings of sample organizations identified by the statistical procedure. The set of organizational clusters or groupings formed in this manner collectively constitute a taxonomy. In general, the use of typologies or conceptual classifications seems to be much more prevalent than that of taxonomy for specifying concepts. In light of this, only typologies are described here in some detail as a way of specifying concepts.

Ideal Types and Related Approaches to Concept SpecificaƟon Another approach to concept specification is that of ideal types. Doty and Glick (1994: 233) note that an ideal type is a construct formed by combining multiple properties. They note that an ideal type as a specification of a concept points to an abstract constellation of properties. They further note that for any related real-world object, its extent of similarity with or distance from an ideal type can be assessed. It needs to be noted that Doty and Glick (1994) suggested that ideal types are not only concepts but they also constitute theories. In the discussion in this book, however, only a limited view of ideal types as a special type of concepts is adopted. A generalized version of an “ideal type” concept is reflected in a “constructed type” outlined in the work of McKinney (1966). Unlike a typology, where a set of objects are classified in mutually exclusive classes, objects do not need to be classified into a set of finite classes in using a constructed type. Rather, various objects from the relevant universe can be graded by being placed at different distances from the constructed type depending on the objects’ similarity with the constructed type.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

When two constructed types are formed by combining a series of bipolar dimensions, the resulting constructed types formed at two different ends of the dimensions constitute what is termed as “polar types” (McKinney, 1966). A continuum gets formed between two polar types and various objects in the reality can be placed on the continuum depending on their similarity with one of the polar types. For example, Pawar and Eastman (1997: 99) specified two polar types—a positive polar type and a negative polar type—of organizational context by using four bipolar dimensions namely type of structure, efficiency versus adaptation orientation, mode of governance, and dominance of technological core versus boundary spanning units, which are factors that characterize an organization’s context. Between these two polar types, these four dimensions collectively formed a continuum of “organizational receptivity to transformational leadership.” Positive polar type represents the “high” end of the organizational receptivity continuum while negative polar type represents the “low” end of the organizational receptivity continuum. In this specification, organizations that, on the basis of the extent of their similarity to a positive polar type, get placed close to the positive polar type have high organizational receptivity to transformational leadership. In contrast, organizations, which on the basis of the extent of their similarity to a negative polar type, get placed close to the negative polar type have low organizational receptivity to transformational leadership.

ConfiguraƟons as an Approach to Concept SpecificaƟon Configurations are constellations of attributes. Some of the features of a configurational approach, in relation to a contingency approach, are outlined by Meyer et al. (1993: 1175–1177). Meyer et al. (1993: 1175) adopt a view that a configuration is a combination of multiple properties that occur simultaneously with each other and include both typologies and taxonomies under the broader heading of “configurations.” Thus, in this view, typologies and taxonomies both are configurations. The description in Meyer et al. (1993: 1175, 1182) suggests that the difference between typologies and taxonomies is that typologies represent an approach similar to ideal types and provide a priori or conceptual classification whereas taxonomies are based on the multidimensional combinations that are identified from statistical analysis and hence possibly implying empirical analysis as the basis of

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

specification of taxonomies. Configurational approach outlined in Meyer et al. (1993), which seems to represent the real-life phenomena through a set of few configurations, is based on certain assumptions including the assumption that the phenomena in the reality occur in an orderly manner and thus variations in the manifestation of phenomena are limited in number. The examples of configurational specifications include Mintzberg’s (1979) specification of structural forms—simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, divisional structure, and adhocracy—and Miles and Snow’s (1978) specification of various strategy types—prospector, defender, analyzer, and reactor—(Doty et al., 1993). Each of these configurational forms could constitute a concept though Doty and Glick (1994) have suggested that a set of ideal types, which they term as “typologies,” constitute a theory. The foregoing discussion suggests that a simple typology as a conceptual classification scheme could provide a means of specifying concepts. This may typically take the form of a classification scheme such as four cells resulting from the combined use of two conceptual dimensions. Other possibilities such as ideal type specification, polar type specification, and more complex configurations formed by using multiple attributes also exist. The views in literature differ concerning whether a typology is the same as ideal type or whether a typology formed along the lines of an ideal type constitutes a theory. For the present purpose of concept specification in the process of theory building for hypothesis specification, the above discussion of a typology as a means of specifying a set of typological concepts may be useful.

Specifica on of Premises in a Theory A theory is a simplified representation of a limited part of the reality. The representation is partly specified in terms of conjectures that specify relationships between concepts and relationships between variables. These conjectures outline predictions about what is likely to be observed in the reality. To make such predictions about a part of the empirical world, some assumptions need to be made about a few parts of the empirical world so that from the known and/or assumed aspects of the empirical world and their properties some predictions about the unknown aspects of the empirical world can be made. These known and/or assumed aspects of the empirical world, used for deriving conjectures about the

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

empirical world, constitute premises in a theory. Thus, premises, as a unit of theory, could come from certain established principles, generalizations formed from certain empirical findings or observations, assumptions pertaining to some aspects of the phenomenon that a theorist seeks to represent. Even a definition of a concept may be used to generate definitional premises. Let us consider a simple example. Let us consider that a researcher seeks to make predictions about how organizations will respond to a category of employees who are known to be unproductive. For this the researcher may need to adopt certain assumptions, principles, or empirical generalizations about the nature of organizations. For example, an assumption may be made that organizations seek to attain economic objectives in a rational manner. This statement could also come from a generalization of empirical findings on the nature of organizational functioning coming from a series of studies. From such an assumption, another related assumption can be made that organizations will seek to attain efficiency. Another assumption, possibly not needing to be stated explicitly, may be that unproductive employees reduce organizational efficiency. Another assumption that can be made is that organizations eliminate those factors that reduce efficiency. Based on these four assumptions, a prediction can be made that organizations will take actions to remove the incidence of unproductive employees. This removal of the “incidence of unproductive employees” may take various forms such as improving employee performance through means such as skill upgradation and motivation, compelling unproductive employees to be productive, or terminating unproductive employees. The previously outlined four assumptions constitute premises from which the conjecture about the organizational response to unproductive employees is derived. In this example, the theory building was for specifying a hypothesis about organizational responses to unproductive employees. Depending on the phenomenon sought to be examined, a researcher will need to identify the relevant premises so that suitable predictions can be made about the phenomenon of interest. A researcher can draw upon an existing representation of the reality, in the form of a theory, and identify the relevant premises from such a representation. For example, in a research paper by Konovsky and Pugh (1994), drawing on the social exchange perspective, a premise was adopted that trust between two parties serves as the basis for the formation of social exchange. Then another premise was drawn that the presence of procedural justice in an organization facilitates the development of trust. Another premise

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

was drawn that an employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance of organizational citizenship behaviors comes out of an employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social exchange relationship with an organization. Based on these premises, it was hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between trust experienced by employees in an organization and the organizational citizenship behaviors performed by employees and that procedural justice influences organizational citizenship behavior through the mediating variable of trust. In general, a researcher could draw premises from various sources such as the empirical findings in the existing literature (for example, the findings on the observed positive relationships between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviors), from the theories available in the existing literature (for example, social exchange theory), or from other sources such as definitional statements, established principles, and assumptions. A researcher needs to decide which premises he will use to derive the conjectures about the phenomenon of interest. The premises to be adopted may partly depend on the nature of phenomenon about which conjectures are sought to be made and on the nature of theory that a researcher uses to derive the conjectures. For this, the researcher may need to use the existing knowledge of the phenomenon and also the knowledge about the theory that he seeks to use to make the conjecture. A researcher would need to pay attention to various aspects here. First, a researcher needs to ensure that all the required premises are drawn and explicitly stated. If a premise is used, but not explicitly stated, then the basis of conjectures will be unclear. Second, the premises drawn by the researcher need to be credible. Thus, the theoretical perspective from which a researcher draws his premises needs to be credible so that premises drawn from it by him for deriving the subsequent conjectures are credible. Credibility of a theoretical perspective may depend on the extent of empirical support available for it. Credibility of a theoretical perspective can also come from the extent to which the perspective has been adopted in the past research. For example, if a theoretical perspective has been extensively used in the past research and conjectures drawn on the basis of premises from it in the past have been supported then the perspective may be regarded as a widely accepted perspective. An example of such a credible theoretical perspective could be social exchange theory. Conjectures from it have been used extensively over about two decades for research in the area of organizational citizenship behavior and in the area of organizational support. Third, premises, if they are in the form of assumptions, need to constitute a reasonable view of human

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

nature. These requirements associated with the nature of premises is consistent with Whetten’s (1989) suggestion that assumptions in a theory need to be explicitly stated and need to represent a reasonable view of the phenomenon to which they pertain. In addition to making assumptions and drawing premises from some existing theoretical perspective, premises can also be drawn from a researcher’s review of a number of studies. For instance, a researcher may review a number of studies and then based on the review infer that a particular relationship is empirically supported in several studies. Based on this, the researcher may infer that the relationship reasonably reflects the reality or a generalized statement about the reality. Thus, he could then take it as a valid statement about the reality and use it as a premise for specifying further conjectures in his study. These various sources from where premises are drawn and the use of premises in specifying propositions and hypotheses would be clearer from some of the examples from published literature outlined in the subsequent parts of this chapter.

Specifica on of Proposi ons and Hypotheses In the preceding chapter, the distinction between a “proposition” and a “hypothesis” was outlined. As the focus of this book is on theory building for hypothesis specification, the terms propositions and hypotheses will not be distinguished in this section. The discussion in this section will focus on how hypotheses (relationships between variables) can be specified through the process of theory building. Similar process will be applicable in specifying propositions (relationships between concepts). In the preceding chapter, it was outlined that one form of correspondence between “propositions” and “hypotheses” is that a “hypothesis” is formed by replacing concepts in a “proposition” with appropriate variables or indicators. It was also indicated in the preceding chapter that in practice the same label is used to refer to a concept as well as its corresponding variable. In the preceding chapter, it was also outlined that the same conjectural statement of relationship between two labels could be either a proposition or a hypothesis depending on whether the labels refer to concepts or variables. Thus, the process involved in specifying conjectural relationship between two units of a theory (concepts or variables) is described below without making a distinction between the relationship in the form of a “proposition” and a “hypothesis.” However, the term

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

“hypothesis” is used to refer to the conjectural statement of relationship specified as an outcome of the theory-building process outlined in this section. In the routine research in empirical papers, hypotheses are derived from definitional statements and premises using some form of reasoning. Definitional statements and premises are two of the units of theory and have been described in the earlier part of this book. If definitional statements are also included in the broader category of “premises,” then it could be said that hypotheses are derived from premises using some reasoning process. The reasoning part is briefly covered here.

Place of Logic and Reasoning in Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon As outlined in chapter 1, this book’s focus is on the positivistic or natural science model of social science research. In this approach to theory building, logic is the basis of deriving conjectures for verification process. This role of logic in theory building or in deriving propositions and hypotheses is reflected in the views of various scholars. Dubin’s (1976: 23) description of theory building notes that first four features—units, laws of interaction, boundary, and system states—are specified. Dubin (1976: 23) further notes that based on these features of a theoretical model, the logical implications of the model, which can be termed as propositions, can be derived. In this sense, and as further noted by Dubin (1976: 25), propositions can be viewed as logical statements about or implications from a theory. This description highlights the role of logic in the specification of propositions. Consistent with this, the description in Whetten (1989: 491) suggests that logic serves as the criterion for the assessment of a theory during the process of building a theory. From a broader perspective, this may suggest that the appropriateness of the process of deriving conjectures can be assessed by considering the appropriateness with which logical reasoning is used in it. The above views outline that the process of theory building and the process of deducing conjectures (relationships specified in propositions and hypotheses) involves the use of logic and logical reasoning. The description in Lee (1991: 343–344) also suggests that logic is applied in the positivistic or natural science model approach in the process of dealing with or deriving propositions in a theoretical system. The description in Lee (1991: 343–344) can be extended to hypothesis

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

specification by replacing the term “propositions” in it with the term “hypotheses” as both can be a conclusion of or conjecture from a logical argument. Thus, in the approach reflected in the description of Lee (1991) also, theory building for hypothesis specification involves use of logic or logical reasoning. A relevant benefit of the use of logical reasoning in deriving conjectures (propositions and hypotheses) is that it can provide a system of argument in which a conclusion of an argument can be guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. And hence, if premises are true then the conclusion’s truth is guaranteed. This is a property of a valid logical argument of a special kind termed as “deductive argument” or of a particular form of reasoning known as “deductive reasoning” which allows generation of “true” conclusions from “true” premises and rules out the possibility of obtaining “false” conclusions if the premises are “true” (Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001; Copi and Cohen, 2002; Hurley, 2003). Thus, to understand the role of logical reasoning or logical arguments in doing theory building for hypothesis specification, a few aspects of the logical reasoning process or logical arguments are briefly described in the following section. It would be appropriate for readers to refer to books on the topic of logic to develop a more detailed understanding of the logical reasoning process. The discussion draws on contents available in books on logic and reasoning (for example, Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001; Copi and Cohen, 2002; Hurley, 2003). In the following parts, a brief discussion of a few preliminary aspects of logical reasoning is first outlined. Then its application to the process of hypothesis specification is outlined through a hypothetical example. Guidelines are provided for developing an example illustrating logical argument from a published paper. Subsequently, a few additional hypothetical examples are provided to illustrate the operation of logical reasoning in the process of theory building for hypotheses specification.

Logical Arguments The terms such as argument, premise, true premise, conclusion, logic, reasoning, valid argument, and sound argument are associated with the reasoning used for hypothesis specification. Some of these terms are described next while others are described in an appropriate place in the discussion in this part of the chapter. The basic unit of focus in reasoning is an “argument,” which is a set of interrelated statements in which one statement, termed as the “conclusion” of an argument, is deduced from or supported by other statements,

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

termed as the “premises” of an argument, in the set. Reasoning process unfolds in the form of an argument. Copi and Cohen (2002: 58) describe reasoning as the process of deriving conclusions from premises, and a similar view of the relationship between reasoning and argument is reflected in other descriptions also (for example, Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001: 10, 19). Premises could be of different kind such as established principles or assumptions. In this sense, an argument reflects the structure of reasoning through which certain premises are sought to be linked to a certain resulting conclusion. The conclusion part of the argument could be viewed as the outcome of the argument or of the associated reasoning process. In this light, it may help to consider as to how logic comes to be associated with the reasoning process. Logic provides guidelines and methods for assessing correctness or appropriateness of reasoning or arguments (Copi and Cohen, 2002: 3; Hurley, 2003: 1). Thus, logical reasoning can be regarded as the reasoning that fulfills the criteria of logic and by an extension of this, it can be suggested that a logical argument can be viewed as an argument that is consistent with the criteria of logic. There are two main forms of logical reasoning or argument, namely, deductive reasoning (argument) or inductive reasoning (argument). While every argument suggests a connection between its premises and the conclusion in the form that the conclusion of it follows from its premises, the nature of support for the connectedness may vary. In a deductive argument the conclusion is adequately or completely supported, or necessarily implied by the premises of the argument whereas conclusion of an inductive argument is not adequately or completely supported or necessarily implied by its premises (Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001: 231; Copi and Cohen, 2002: 43; Hurley, 2003: 31) A logical argument is said to be valid when the claim contained in an argument that its conclusions are adequately supported by its premises, is a correct claim. The previously cited literature also indicates that as the provision of complete support for a conclusion by its premises is a feature of a deductive argument, and not of an inductive argument, the notion of validity applies only to deductive arguments. Copi and Cohen (2002) note that the task of deductive logic is to distinguish valid arguments from invalid ones and indicate that the classical logic associated with the work of Aristotle provides one approach to the task of assessing validity of an argument. This approach’s application in the natural science model is reflected in Lee’s (1991: 344–345) illustration of the use of “syllogism” as a form of valid argument used in “deductivenomological” reasoning associated with the natural science model.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Syllogism and other few related valid argument forms will be used in this chapter to illustrate the process of valid reasoning. As a part of this illustration, a few standard forms of elementary valid deductive arguments are outlined in the subsequent section based on Cederblom and Paulsen (2001), Copi and Cohen (2002), and Hurley (2003). In general, syllogism involves two premises and a conclusion while a categorical syllogism consists of three categorical statements with certain features (Copi and Cohen, 2002: 217–218; Hurley, 2003: 33, 242–243). A categorical syllogism is outlined in the following hypothetical example. Premise 1: All motivated employees are productive (a major premise). Premise 2: Ronald is a motivated employee (a minor premise). Conclusion: Therefore, Ronald is productive (conclusion). This is a valid form of categorical syllogism in which each statement is simple in that it has a single component denying or affirming an entity’s or a class’s membership of another class. Literature (for example, Copi and Cohen, 2002: 280; Hurley, 2003: 331) suggests that another form of syllogism—pure hypothetical syllogism, which is referred to as a hypothetical argument in Cederblom and Paulsen (2001: 35)—contains hypothetical or conditional statements as premises and one hypothetical or conditional statement as a conclusion as outlined in the following hypothetical example of this form. Premise 1:

If an employee is committed then he works for the benefit of an organization (a compound statement specifying a condition and forming Premise 1). Premise 2: If an employee works for the benefit of an organization then he performs positive behaviors (a compound statement specifying a condition and forming Premise 2). Conclusion: Therefore, if an employee is committed then he performs positive behaviors (the conclusion). In contrast to a deductive argument that guarantees the truth of its conclusion when its premises are true, inductive arguments do not make the claim that when their premises are true, their conclusion is also necessarily true (Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001: 231; Copi and Cohen, 2002: 42–43; Hurely, 2003: 31). Literature (Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001: 231; Copi and Cohen,2002: 43; Hurely, 2003: 31) indicates that inductive arguments claim that their premises imply or support their conclusion, but this claim is probabilistic rather than definitive in nature.

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

A hypothetical example of an inductive argument is outlined next. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Employee A performed positive behaviors (Premise 1). Employee B performed positive behaviors (Premise 2). Employee C performed positive behaviors (Premise 3). Therefore, all employees perform positive behaviors (Conclusion).

In this inductive argument, which concludes a generalization or inductive generalization, even if the individual premises are true, the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed. Thus, based on the literature (for example, Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001; Copi and Cohen, 2002; Hurley, 2003) and associated discussion, the following aspects of logic and logical reasoning can be summarized. One logical argument is associated with one conclusion and consists of a collection of statements in which certain statements constitute premises which result in or support a conclusion. A logical argument outlines reasoning process that complies with criteria of logic and indicates how the conclusion of it is linked to its premises. A logical argument is valid if its claim that the truth of premises guarantees the truth of conclusions is correct. As only deductive arguments make such claim, the notion of validity is applicable only to deductive reasoning which is defined as a reasoning process in which the truth of premises guarantees the truth of a conclusion whereas in inductive reasoning the notion of probability rather than that of validity applies as one makes probabilistic inferences about the likely conclusions from a set of premises. Lee (1991) illustrates the use of deductive argument/reasoning of the “syllogism” form applied though “hypothetico-deductive” method. General theories or laws (for example, all motivated employees are productive), that are to be verified, are coupled with a specific fact (for example, Robert is motivated) to derive a conclusion or prediction (for example, Robert is productive). Then if the observations in the empirical world are found to be consistent with the conclusion of the syllogism argument then it provides evidence for the truth of the general theory or law. This suggests the use of syllogism form of deductive argument to derive specific conclusions or predictions from general laws. Baronov (2004: 59) describes deductive-nomological method or model as having two basic components—deductive argument and general laws. The deductive argument component suggests that a collection of premises completely supports a conclusion. The description in Baronov (2004: 59) suggests that the general laws component indicates that

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

the conclusions are based on general laws. It may be noted that the word “nomos” is the Greek origin of the word “law” (Mackenzie and House, 1978: 8) and hence, the word “nomological” in “deductivenomological” approach suggests the component of “laws” or of general laws. However, the relevant question here is how the general laws are formed. The specification of general laws seems to be linked to inductive generalizations. Baronov (2004: 16) outlines an argument form termed as “inferential statements.” He indicates that in inferential statements, what is observed in the past instances is extended to future instances. The hypothetical example of inductive reasoning outlined in the preceding part can also be regarded as providing an example of an “inferential statement.” The conclusion or inductive generalization that “all employees perform positive behaviors” derived from the specific observed instances of employees A, B, and C performing positive behaviors in the previously outlined hypothetical example seems similar to Baronov’s (2004: 16) description of the inferential statement form of argument. The inductive basis of the laws is reflected in Baronov’s description of how universal laws are developed. The description in Baronov (2004: 61) suggests that laws are formulated on the basis of observed regularities in a phenomenon and, hence, grounding of laws in observations indicates that an inductive approach is used in formulating laws from observations. Baronov (2004: 61) further notes that a statement that is in a form that is similar to law, and which states if something then something else as well is a generalized statement about the simultaneous or related occurrence of two phenomena. Use of this form of laws or statements as premises can be seen in some examples of theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in the subsequent part of this chapter. Baronov (2004: 63) points out the existence of other terms of “practical law” and “experimental law,” which refer to empirical or inductive generalizations. Baronov (2004: 63) indicates that practical laws refer to inductive generalizations and distinguishes them from universal laws by noting that the practical laws reflect observed general tendencies rather than universal laws. Baronov (2004: 63) suggests that such practical laws cannot serve as a basis to build general theories. In the practice of theory-building process for hypothesis specification, which does not focus on developing general theories or grand theories, both these forms of laws—universal or general laws and generalized trends or tendencies inferred from a limited set of observations—are likely to form a part of a larger category termed as “premises” and can be used in arguments. It seems, however, likely that the degree of credibility of arguments using these two forms of laws as premises will be different.

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

From the preceding descriptions, it can be noted that an inductive inference form of argument or reasoning can be used to form empirical generalizations or practical laws. Further, consistent with hypotheticodeductive method, deductive argument form can be used to generate specific conjectures/predictions (propositions and hypotheses) from general laws. Thus, the foregoing discussion would suggest that the complete process of theory building for hypotheses specification would involve the use of both inductive and deductive reasoning. This is consistent with Bourgeois’s (1979: 444–446) description of theory-building steps in organizational studies in which he indicates that deductive reasoning step follows the inductive reasoning step and points out that theory building would involve their iterative or interactive, rather than sequential, use. In light of the aforementioned discussion, theory building for hypotheses specification would involve constructing one or more arguments leading to the final conclusion of the argument(s) which constitutes the hypothesis as an outcome of the theory-building process. The statements that lead to the conclusion are termed as “premises.” As noted earlier, in the actual process of theory building in published literature in organizational studies, the premises do not come from generalized laws alone, rather, they could come from definitional statements, from established principles, from general laws, from a series of empirical findings, from conjectures of widely accepted theoretical model, and so on. Based on the previously cited literature, the validity of the logical reasoning or logical arguments associated with this theory-building process for hypothesis specification can be assessed and depicted using some techniques. First, the reasoning associated with theory building for hypothesis specification can be described as a series of simple or elementary arguments. The conclusion of one argument in the series of arguments could provide a premise for the subsequent arguments forming a chain of successive arguments. Thus, a statement could be a conclusion of an argument and form a premise of the subsequent argument in the chain of arguments in which the conclusion of the last argument provides the hypothesis that is sought to be generated. In such a chain of arguments, each argument can be separately identified as an elementary deductive argument. Then validity of each elementary deductive argument can be assessed by comparing that argument with a standard form of valid elementary deductive argument (for example, categorical syllogism, hypothetical syllogism) such as those outlined previously. For this, the arguments generated in the actual theory-building process for hypothesis

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

specification can be paraphrased or rewritten, without changing their substance or meaning, to put them into a format that is comparable to a standard form of valid elementary argument. When a series of arguments, in an interconnected manner, are needed to specify a hypothesis, which is the final conclusion of the series of arguments, the interrelationships among individual arguments can be depicted using a suitable diagram. These processes (using diagrams to depict the interrelationships between a series of arguments, rewriting an argument in a form comparable to standard form of a valid elementary argument, comparing the logical adequacy of an overall argument by assessing validity of individual arguments that form a part of it by comparing the individual arguments with valid elementary argument forms) associated with theory building for hypotheses setting will be illustrated in this chapter through a hypothetical example and an example from a published paper. Several examples from published research papers illustrating how the process of theory building for hypothesis specification occurs in practice are outlined in the next chapter. In the process of theory building for hypothesis specification, the purpose is to derive a conjecture that is a reasonable representation of the empirical world or reality. Hence, the focus is on generating conjectures that have a reasonable potential to be true in terms of correspondence with the empirical world. For this, it will be necessary to develop logical argument or reasoning in such a way that the argument or reasoning supports the likely truth, in terms of the likely correspondence with the empirical world, of the conclusion of the argument or the hypothesis specified out of the theory-building process. This can possibly be facilitated by what is referred to as a “sound” argument which according to the literature (Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001: 88; Copi and Cohen, 2002: 49; Hurley, 2003: 43) is an argument that is valid and all its premises are true. Thus, hypotheses generated from theory-building process that contains sound arguments are likely to correspond to the empirical world and likely to be true in relation to the empirical world. This possibly reflects a suggestion contained in the literature (Copi and Cohen, 2002: 43, 49; Hurley, 2003: 42–44) that in a valid argument the conclusion is completely supported by premises or it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if premises are true and hence if all premises of a valid argument are true then the conclusion is both completely supported by premises as well as true. In the practice of theory building for hypothesis setting, as reflected in published works in academic journals, the focus seems to be on not

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

necessarily “true” premises (in the sense of premises’ correspondence with the empirical reality), but on premises that are reasonable. Even theoretical views and suggestions from the existing literature are used in the form of premises and for them the criterion of being “true” or correspondence with the empirical reality is not likely to be applicable. This is reflected in Whetten’s (1989: 493, 494) indication that in assessing the “why” or “why so” of a theory, one of the aspects considered is whether the assumptions used in developing a theory or as a basis of the propositions are reasonable assumptions. Thus, in the practice of theory building, reasonableness of premises rather than the “truth” of the premises seems to be the criterion used in choosing premises for constructing a sound logical argument. Two aspects—reasonable premises and valid logical reasoning—thus, can be regarded as constituting a sound logical argument in practice and the resulting conclusion or hypothesis of interest can be regarded as being reasonably plausible. Two examples of logical arguments used for specifying hypotheses are outlined next. The first example is hypothetical, while the second example can be derived from the description of theory building for hypothesis specification in a published journal paper. An example of logical arguments in deriving hypotheses: A hypothe cal example In Figure 1.1, one of the hypothesized relationships specifies a positive relationship between employees’ organizational commitment and positive behavior. To arrive at the specification of this hypothesis from the theory-building process, some of the possible argument forms that could be developed are outlined here. The statements in the arguments outlined here have been worded to illustrate different forms of argument. Therefore, the structure of these individual statements may be slightly different from typical sentence structures used in conventional writing. Alternative Form 1 — Categorical Syllogism: 1. All positive attitude employees are positive behavior performers. 2. All high organizational commitment employees are positive attitude employees. 3. Therefore, all high organizational commitment employees are positive behavior performers. The hypothesis in Figure 1.1 that employees’ organizational commitment is positively related with positive behavior is just another linguistic

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

expression of Statement 3 in the aforesaid argument. The aforesaid argument has the form of a standard categorical syllogism, which is an elementary valid deductive argument. Alternative Form 2 — Categorical Syllogism with Different Wording: 1. Positive attitudes are (a cause of/an antecedent of) positive behaviors. 2. Organizational commitment is (a form of/a) positive attitude(s). 3. Therefore, organizational commitment is a cause of/an antecedent of positive behaviors. The premises and conclusion in this argument are worded somewhat differently from the standard categorical syllogism. However, there are similarities between the structures of these two arguments. It may be feasible to see more clearly the structure of such arguments if the reasoning in the argument statements could be depicted by using some pictures. In the area of industrial engineering there are various types of diagrams such as those indicating the layout of production facilities and the sequence of various steps in a production operation. In the area of computer programming there are techniques that include flowcharts showing how different steps in a computer program are interlinked, and in the area of project management there are networks or path diagrams indicating how various project activities are interlinked. Such flowcharts and network diagrams can help in visualizing how various components or parts of a production operation, computer program, or project are interlinked. Similarly, if some flowchart or network can be drawn to indicate how various statements in an argument are interlinked, then it may become easier to see how various statements of premise in an argument support the argument’s conclusion statement. Somewhat similar to the process of preparation of such flowcharts and networks, literature in the area of logic (for example, Cederblaum and Paulsen, 2001: 11; Copi and Cohen, 2002: 12–18; Hurley, 2003: 60–64) describe or use a diagramming technique to depict how statements in an argument are interlinked. This technique described in the literature (for example, Copi and Cohen, 2002: 12–18; Hurley, 2003: 60–64) involves: (i) assigning serial numbers to each statement in the text associated with a logical argument and (ii) drawing a diagram indicating how the statements, with each statement represented in the diagram by just its serial number, of premises are linked to the statement of conclusion in the logical argument text.

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

If these steps of flowchart or network preparation, available in areas such as industrial engineering, computer programming, and project management, are applied to the previously outlined two forms of logical argument, then the resulting diagram, flowchart, or network for each of the two aforementioned logical arguments would depict that Statement 1 (a premise) and Statement 2 (a premise) converge, and then jointly support or flow into or lead to the Statement 3 (conclusion). It may be noted that a common arrow leading from the point of convergence of premises 1 and 2 to the conclusion 3 in the resulting diagram, flowchart, or network would indicate that both the premises jointly support the conclusion rather than each of the two premises providing separate and independent support for the conclusion (in which case two independent arrows would have been drawn each leading independently from one of the two premises to the conclusion). This representation, reflected in the resulting diagram, flowchart, or network would point out that both premises are necessary to support the conclusion. Alternative Form 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pure Hypothetical Syllogism or Hypothetical Argument 1. If organizational commitment then positive work-attitudes. 2. If positive work-attitudes then positive behaviors. 3. Therefore, if organizational commitment then positive behaviors. This is a valid elementary deductive argument and can be diagrammed using the steps outlined previously or any other general technique of flowchart or network preparation. An example of logical arguments in deriving hypotheses: An example from a journal ar cle to be developed by a reader To illustrate the logical arguments, in terms of interconnections between various statements, associated with theory building for hypothesis specification in practice, a reader can take an actual text block associated with theory building for hypothesis specification contained in a published research paper and carry out the earlier outlined steps based on the diagramming technique outlined in the literature in the area of logic (for example, Copi and Cohen, 2002: 12â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18; Hurley, 2003: 60â&#x20AC;&#x201C;64) or steps in any general technique of flowchart or network preparation available in areas such as industrial engineering, computer programming, and project management, treating each statement in an argument text

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

block as a unit and depicting the interconnections or flow across units (that is, statements). Though the resulting visual representation of the forms such as a diagram, flowchart, or network for an actual argument in a published paper, is likely to be complex, it is likely that the simple diagrams, flowcharts, or networks are likely to form parts of the complex diagram, flowchart, or network that a reader may develop to depict an actual logical argument associated with theory building for hypothesis specification in a published research paper. The hypothetical example in the earlier part of this chapter outlines how logical arguments and logical reasoning can be associated with theory building for hypothesis specification. Two additional hypothetical examples are outlined in the following section. These may help to more clearly see various aspects of how logical arguments and logical reasoning can be associated with theory building for hypothesis specification.

AddiƟonal HypotheƟcal Examples of Logical Reasoning for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon A hypothe cal example: Developing a hypothesis from premises and reasoning Argument 1: 1. Behaviors toward an object consistent with attitudes toward the object result in satisfaction (a generalization from findings from past “n” studies). 2. People perform those behaviors that are satisfying (a premise coming from an established principle). 3. Therefore, people perform behaviors toward an object that are consistent with their attitudes. Alternatively, if people have positive attitudes toward an object then they perform positive behavior toward the object. (Conclusion 1 in Argument 1 [the first argument in the sequence of arguments] coming from its above two premises).

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

Argument 2: 4. If people have commitment to an organization, then they have a positive attitude toward an organization (a premise coming from an assumption or a definitional premise coming from the definition of “commitment”). 5. If people have positive attitudes toward an object (organization) then they perform positive behavior toward the object (organization). (a premise derived by rewording the conclusion in Statement 3 of the preceding [first] argument). 6. Therefore, if people have commitment to an organization then they perform positive behavior toward an organization. (Conclusion 1 in Argument 2 [the second argument in the sequence of arguments] coming from its preceding two premises). Therefore, the following hypotheses: 7. Therefore, commitment to an organization should be positively related to positive behavior toward an organization (a conclusion of Argument 2 and an outcome of sequential process of reasoning in the combined sequence of Argument 1 and 2). 8. An individual with high commitment to an organization should perform more positive behaviors than an individual with low commitment to an organization (another way of stating the preceding conclusion and hypothesis). The hypotheses in Statements 7 and 8 are reworded versions of Statement 6 which is a conclusion of Argument 2 and the conclusion of the overall sequence of two arguments. Argument 1 and 2 are valid elementary forms of deductive argument of the type “pure hypothetical syllogism.” Thus, based on the property of valid deductive reasoning, the truth of the conclusion of each of these two arguments necessarily follows and gets established from the truth of the premises in these two arguments. Thus, if the premises are true then the hypothesis is true. Thus, if the premises are true then an outcome is a hypothesis which is expected to be true in the sense of being correspondent

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

with the empirical world. Thus, hypothesis Statement 7 (and also hypothesis Statement 8, which is merely a rewording of hypothesis Statement 7) is expected to be true to the extent premises are true. The extent of confidence in the premises being true is likely to be influenced by the place of the source of the premise in the earlier outlined list of various premise sources arranged in a tentative order of their credibility. In light of the preceding example, it can be noted that the premises of an argument come from various sources including: (i) established principles from research (similar to general laws or universal laws mentioned in Baronov [2004] and Lee [1991]), (ii) inductive generalizations coming from sophisticated techniques such as meta-analysis that can provide generalized findings on a relationship from the individual findings of several specific studies focusing on that relationship, (iii) inductively developed generalizations based on the empirical findings in a few studies in the past research, (iv) conjectures/views based on the extensive and systematic review and evaluation of the previous conceptual and empirical literature on the relevant topic, (v) conjectures/views coming from several previous conceptual works, (vi) conjectures/views from one or few previous conceptual works, and (vii) a researcher’s own assumptions. While these could be among the possible sources from which a researcher can draw the premises for developing an argument whose final conclusion is a hypothesis, it is likely that the confidence in their truth, their credibility, their acceptance as a reasonable view of the reality may gradually get lowered as one moves from the first to the last source in the preceding list. Thus, though a researcher can have a choice in adopting premises to be used in theory building for hypothesis setting, the quality of the theory building (particularly of the “why” aspect of theory and “why so” and “well done?” criteria of judging a theory’s appropriateness [Whetten, 1989: 491, 493, 494]) may be affected by how this choice is exercised as the quality of premises may get lowered as one moves from the first to the last source of the premises outlined in the preceding list. The foregoing discussion indicates that inductive reasoning (in the form that inductively develops generalizations) can serve as one source of premises in the theory-building process. A brief discussion of this aspect, using the hypothetical example in Figure 1.1, is outlined next. Consider the following hypothetical example of developing a generalization through an inductive argument.

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

1. Study A found that behaviors consistent with attitudes result in satisfaction (Instance 1). 2. Study B found that behaviors consistent with attitudes result in satisfaction (Instance 2). 3. Therefore, behaviors consistent with attitudes result in satisfaction (a conclusion coming from inductive argument of the form inductive generalization). In this example, each study located in the existing literature is treated as one observation. Based on two instances (the number of observations could vary), an empirical or inductive generalization is derived. Thus, inductive reasoning of the type outlined in the preceding hypothetical example can be used in deriving empirical or inductive generalizations. These empirical or inductive generalizations can then be used as premises for the subsequent process of proposition specification. Let us consider an example of hypothesis generation where inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning is used in an intertwined manner in theory building for hypothesis specification. Combina on of induc ve-deduc ve reasoning: A hypothe cal example Argument 1: 1. Behaviors toward an object that are consistent with attitudes toward the object result in satisfaction (a premise coming from the generalization from findings from past “n” studies examining this relationship). 2. People perform those behaviors that are satisfying (a premise coming from the generalization from findings from past “n” studies examining this relationship). 3. Therefore, people perform behaviors toward an object that are consistent with their attitudes toward the object. Alternatively, if people have positive attitudes toward an object then they perform positive behavior toward the object. (conclusion 1 in Argument 1 [the first argument in the sequence of arguments] coming from its preceding two premises).

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Argument 2: 4. If people have commitment to an organization then they have a positive attitude toward an organization. (a premise coming from an assumption or a definitional premise coming from the definition of “commitment”). 5. If people have positive attitudes toward an object (organization) then they perform positive behavior toward the object (organization). (a premise derived by rewording the conclusion in Statement 3 of the preceding [first] argument). 6. Therefore, if people have commitment to an organization then they perform positive behavior toward an organization. Therefore, the following hypotheses: 7. Therefore, commitment to an organization should be positively related to positive behavior toward an organization (a conclusion of Argument 2 and an outcome of sequential process of reasoning in the combined sequence of preceding Argument 1 and 2). 8. An individual with high commitment to an organization should perform more positive behaviors than an individual with low commitment to an organization (another way of stating the previous conclusion and hypothesis). The hypotheses in Statements 7 and 8 are reworded versions of Statement 6 which is a conclusion of Argument 2 and the conclusion of the overall sequence of two arguments. Conclusion of the first argument (Statement 3), in a reworded form, constitutes a premise (Statement 5) in the second argument and thus serves as a link which connects the two arguments in a sequential chain with Statements 1 and 2 supporting Statement 3 and Statements 4 and 5 (which is reworded Statement 3) supporting Statement 6. If the overall logical argument consisting of the previously outlined two logical arguments is depicted to have a visual representation by carrying out the earlier described steps in the diagramming technique described in the literature (for example, Copi and Cohen, 2002: 12–18; Hurley, 2003: 60–64) or by using any other general techniques of preparing flowcharts or networks from the areas such as industrial engineering,

Aspects of the Process of Theory Building

computer programming, or project management then the resulting diagram, flowchart, or network would depict that Statement 1 and Statement 2 constitute two premises which converge and then jointly support the conclusion Statement 3 in the first argument, and Statement 4 and Statement 5 (which is reworded Statement 3), which constitute two premises in the second argument, converge and then jointly support the conclusion Statement 6. In the preceding example, premises are in the form of generalizations made from a few instances and come from an argument which, according to the literature (for example, Cederblom and Paulsen, 2001; Copi and Cohen, 2002; Hurley, 2003), is a form of inductive argument. These inductively derived generalizations can replace one alternative source of premises namely general or universal laws that have been suggested as a part of the hypothetico-deductive approach (Lee, 1991) and deductivenomological reasoning (Baronov, 2004) which is associated with the positivistic approach to knowledge generation. Thus, the previously outlined interweaving of inductive and deductive reasoning/argument is consistent with the “deductive-nomological” approach and “hypotheticodeductive” approach, which are parts of the larger positivistic approach to knowledge generation. The interweaving of inductive-deductive reasoning processes in the theory building has also been suggested by Bourgeois III (1979) and Dubin (1976) notes that the starting point of theory building is in the form of inductive reasoning wherein from certain empirical observations a few generalizations are formed and that are used in the subsequent theory-building process. Thus, the theory-building process for hypothesis specification outlined and illustrated in this chapter is consistent with the views of the theory-building process and knowledge-generation process contained in some of the relevant existing literature. It can be noted that much more detailed and complex arguments are developed in the two preceding examples than the arguments developed in the examples outlined in the earlier part of this chapter to specify the same conclusion or hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between commitment and positive behavior. There is a difference as well as relationship between reasoning or argument and explanation in that to deduce a conclusion from premises is reasoning or argument while to account for a conclusion or a fact or a phenomenon, using premises, is an explanation (for example, Copi and Cohen, 2002: 494, Hurely, 2003: 19–20). Thus, more detailed and elaborate reasoning in the immediately preceding examples also provides more detailed and elaborate explanation

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

for the conclusion or hypothesis (and thereby for the phenomenon in the empirical world that is sought to be represented by the hypothesis). Thus, explanatory utility (Bacharach, 1989) of the theory associated with a hypothesis is likely to be greater when more detailed and elaborate premises are used in the arguments developed for specifying a hypothesis. These details can more clearly explain “why” the relationship specified in the hypothesis is likely to occur. This chapter outlined the process of theory building for hypothesis specification and illustrated the process with a few hypothetical examples. Several examples from the published papers in journals are outlined in the next chapter to further illustrate the presence of the previously outlined theory-building process in them. These examples may help readers to see more clearly how the theory-building process for hypothesis specification occurs in practice and to see some of the range of variations that can occur in it.

Summary Theory-building process involves several steps such as domain specification, concepts identification, specification of definitions for concepts, premises identification, development of logical argument/reasoning to generate suitable conclusions from premises in order to specify a hypothesis concerning an appropriate (logically true) relationship between the relevant aspects of the phenomenon under study. There are relevant details associated with several of these steps as described and illustrated through examples in this chapter. The theory-building process outlined here builds on the discussion in the preceding chapters (for example, the place of theory in the larger context of science and research, what is theory and its role in the research process and units of theory). In the theory-building process for hypothesis specification, inductive and deductive forms of reasoning/argument get interwoven as conclusions or hypotheses are derived from premises. The way the process is carried out at different steps can affect the quality of hypothesis specification emerging from it. As an extension of the contents in this and previous chapters, in the next chapter additional examples from the published journal papers are used to illustrate the theory-building process for hypothesis specification as it unfolds in the actual practice of research in organizational studies.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon: ObservaƟons and Examples from Published Research

he preceding chapter described some aspects of the process of theory building for hypothesis specification. In this chapter some observations are outlined about the actual practice of theory building for hypothesis specification as reflected in published empirical research papers. In describing these observations, some details of the descriptions related to theory building for hypothesis specification contained in the published papers are used. Whenever such details from published papers are used in describing the observations, the relevant page numbers from the papers are also provided in addition to providing citation-related information. Of the two categories of published papers—conceptual papers and empirical papers—only empirical papers are included in this chapter. It is only in empirical research papers that hypotheses are both developed through theory building and they are empirically tested. Thus, theory building for hypothesis specification is contained in empirical research papers. In contrast, conceptual papers could do theory building for various purposes other than hypothesis specification such as concept specification and developing propositions some of which may not be directly or immediately empirically testable.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

A Few ObservaƟons about and Examples from Published Research In my study of a few actual published empirical research papers to make some observations about how theory building for hypothesis specification is done and described in practice, I observed that the theory-building process and descriptions outlined in published empirical papers take various forms. I tried to place these observations into certain categories and used labels to identify those categories. The use of these categories and labels thus may have various limitations. Some of the limitations of these categories and labels and their possible utility are outlined next. First limitation is that the published papers that I studied for this specific purpose and the associated observations are not comprehensive. However, these observations seem to depict a reasonable amount of variety and may provide at least a rudimentary view of some of the features associated with the actual practice of theory building for hypothesis specification. I have summarized my observations using a list of categories as outlined in the subsequent section. Second limitation may be that these categories are not designed to identify a comprehensive range in the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification. This set of categories evolved in the process of structuring the description of my observations. Thus, it is likely that these observations and the associated categories and labels identify only a few of the various possible ways in which theory building for hypothesis specification occurs in practice. It may be feasible to develop many more categories or a completely different set of categories to describe the various features of theory building for hypothesis specification that occurs in practice. However, it may be noted here that this set of categories is not outlined to propose any classification system for various forms of theory building for hypothesis specification. Third limitation is that the labels that I have used to identify various categories reflect my choice of labels and are not a part of any standard set of terminology associated with any classification. In particular, the labels “simple” and “complex” are used in a relative and loose sense without any precise criteria for what constitutes a simple or a complex argument. Fourth limitation may be that the specific example(s) outlined under a particular category label may not adequately characterize that category or may have features that do not adequately characterize that category label. Here it may be noted that these examples under various categories are used partly for a limited purpose of giving some concrete form to the description of my few observations about the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification.

ObservaƟons and Examples

In light of these limitations of the categories and labels used below for describing some of my observations, it may be feasible to ignore the categories and the associated labels and use the following text only to understand some observations about the actual practice of theory building for hypothesis specification in empirical research papers. With the earlier noted likely limitations, I have categorized and labeled my limited observations as follows: 1. Simple Argument: Premises Mostly Based on Definitions and Assumptions 2. Simple Argument: Based on an Existing Model 3. Simple Argument: Based on Definitions, an Existing Model, and a General Law 4. Simple Argument: Based on the Existing Conceptual Literature and Empirical Findings 5. Complex Argument: Based on the Existing Conceptual Literature and Empirical Findings 6. Complex Argument: Based on Multiple Models 7. Complex Argument: Based on a Model and General Laws My observations associated with each of these categories are outlined in the next section.

1. Simple Argument: Premises Mostly Based on DefiniƟons and AssumpƟons One possible form in which theory building can occur for hypothesis specification is to formulate simple argument based on definitions of one or more concepts and a few assumptions made by the researcher specifying the hypothesis. A researcher could use some reasoning to derive implications of the definitions and specify such implications as conjectures. Further, a researcher can use such implications as a set of premises and identify additional premises by adopting certain assumptions about the phenomenon being examined. Subsequently, the set of premises coming from implications of definitions and from assumptions can be used as a part of reasoning process to derive conclusions or conjectures that could constitute the hypotheses. An example of this category can be noted in some of the description of theory building for hypothesis specification in Mayer and Schoorman (1992: 673–674). Mayer and Schoorman (1992: 673–674) divided the

100

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

concept of organizational commitment into two types of commitments namely value commitment and continuance commitment and provided definitions for them. They used the definition of continuance commitment and certain assumptions to specify a negative relationship between employees’ continuance commitment and employees’ absenteeism and quitting, and a positive relationship between employees’ continuance commitment and employees’ intent to remain with an organization. Then they used the definition of value commitment and derived implications of the definition to specify a positive relationship between employees’ value commitment and employees’ performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and satisfaction with organization. Finally, using these relationships, they specified the study hypotheses outlining the different strengths of relationships of these two forms of commitment with the outcome variables of absenteeism, quitting, intent to remain, performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction.

2. Simple Argument: Based on an ExisƟng Model Another possible way of generating a hypothesis is by deriving implications from a theoretical model that has already been specified in the existing research. Some kind of reasoning is typically likely to be associated with the process of deriving implications from an existing model. The words model and theoretical model, as outlined in the earlier part of the book, have been used interchangeably and refer to theory. Thus, the approach outlined in this category is that of deriving implications of an existing theory for specifying one or more hypotheses. An example of this approach is found in the work of McFarlin and Rice (1992: 42) who specified the relationship of one antecedent factor—the discrepancy on an aspect between what an employee wants and what he receives in an organization—with employees’ satisfaction. To hypothesize the relationship, McFarlin and Rice (1992: 42) drew on an earlier model specified in the past research by another researcher. Drawing on an existing model, they hypothesized that the discrepancy between how much of an aspect an employee wants and how much of that aspect the employee’s environment provides would predict the employee’s level of satisfaction with that aspect.

ObservaƟons and Examples

101

3. Simple Argument: Based on DefiniƟons, an ExisƟng Model, and a General Law Use of concept definitions, an existing model, and one or more general laws to develop a simple logical argument in doing theory building for hypothesis specification is another possible way in which theory building for hypothesis specification may be done. Definitions of concepts associated with a phenomenon, an existing theory that is related to the phenomenon and some relevant general laws can collectively provide multiple statements that can be used as premises in the theory-building process. Such premises, along with some reasoning, can be used in the theory-building process to specify hypotheses.

4. Simple Argument: Based on the ExisƟng Conceptual Literature and Empirical Findings In practice, theory building for hypothesis specification can also derive statements of premises using existing conceptual literature and empirical findings. Reasoning process can then be applied using these premises to specify hypotheses. An example of this is reflected in Aquino et al. (1999: 1074–1077) who specified and empirically examined a theoretical model that contained hypotheses relating four antecedent concepts—distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, and negative affectivity— with two outcome concepts—organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Based on the existing literature, Aquino et al. (1999: 1074) provided formal, explicit definitions for some of the concepts—employee deviance and negative affectivity—in their theoretical model and provided only descriptions, rather than formal explicit definitions, for the concepts of distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Subsequently, Aquino et al. (1999: 1075–1076), based on the review of the existing literature, suggested that employees’ unfavorable perceptions of each of these three forms of justice will be associated with employee deviance. Then, drawing on additional existing literature, Aquino et al. (1999: 1176–1077) did further theory building for specifying the hypothesized relationships between each of the three justice forms and the two specific forms of employee deviance—employees’ interpersonal deviance and employees’ organizational deviance.

102

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Theory-building process in this category draws on the existing conceptual literature and empirical literature to derive statements. Such statements can serve as premises to be used in the theory-building process for hypothesis specification. Because the existing literature used could be either conceptual or empirical, the expressions used in describing theory-building process would indicate the nature of literature drawn upon. For instance, there may be phrases such as “certain researcher has suggested” possibly indicating that the literature used in arriving at the statement associated with this phrase is a conceptual paper containing some conjectures or propositions rather than empirical findings. In contrast, phrases such as “the existing evidence indicates” or “findings of a study indicate” would indicate that the existing empirical papers are drawn upon for the statements associated with these phrases. Further, the expressions are likely to be phrased in such a way that some indication is provided as to whether only one or multiple papers in the existing research have been used as the basis for deriving a statement. These differences in terms of whether the literature drawn upon is conceptual or empirical and whether only one or multiple papers have been drawn upon for arriving at a statement could affect the credibility of the statement and of the premise that is formed from the statement. Further, because the existing literature of various forms including conceptual literature is used for purposes such as arriving at premises or for supporting reasoning leading to hypothesis specification, the theorybuilding description may contain tentative expressions such as “existing literature may suggest,” “these views may suggest,” “these findings seem to suggest,” and “based on these views it seems possible to suggest.” However, tentativeness, suggestive orientation, and conjectural orientation are not likely to be features unique to this category of observation about theory building for hypothesis specification. The various aspects of the practice outlined here indicate that in practice theory building for hypothesis specification may not take the form of strict logical reasoning. Rather, conjectures or conclusions that form hypotheses may be specified based on support obtained from various suggestions or tentative inferences that can be gathered from the existing conceptual and empirical literature. Thus, features that may be associated with formal logical reasoning such as clear identification of premises, explicit development of a formal logical argument of one of the standard forms, and demonstration of the validity of the logical argument, do not seem to be associated with the descriptions provided in practice for theory building for hypothesis

ObservaƟons and Examples

103

specification. Rather, in practice, reasonableness and plausibility of the reasoning process or explanation associated with hypothesis specification is indicated in the description of theory building for hypothesis specification.

5. Complex Argument: Based on the ExisƟng Conceptual Literature and Empirical Findings Category 4 described the use of conceptual views and empirical findings from the existing literature and developing relatively simple arguments as a part of theory building for hypothesis specification. It is likely that the existing conceptual literature and empirical findings may not be adequate. Because of such constraints associated with the relevant existing literature, the premises may not be adequate in number or precise and clear in form and the connection between premises and conclusion may not be close. These features of an argument can make it relatively complex in comparison to category 4 described previously. An example of this category reflecting the constraints imposed on the availability of the relevant existing literature can be, to some extent, seen as the theory building associated with a few of the hypotheses in Falbe and Yukl’s (1992) paper which includes specification of hypotheses concerning relationships between various influence tactics and the type of outcomes in the form of target responses—compliance, commitment, or resistance—to the influence tactics. Before doing the actual theory building for the specification of individual hypotheses, Falbe and Yukl (1992: 640) indicated the difficulty involved in specifying individual hypotheses in this topic area of the consequence of influence tactics use because of factors such as the presence of multiple variables affecting the outcome variable (the type of response of the target to whom the influence tactic is applied) and inconsistent findings in the existing research in this topic area. As an example of theory building for individual hypotheses, it can be noted that the fourth hypothesis in Falbe and Yukl (1992: 641) specified which outcome is more likely to occur with the use of ingratiation influence tactic. The hypothesis is specified and then after the hypothesis statement, a paragraph is provided that contains the text associated with the specification or explanation of the hypothesis and describes some aspects of the ingratiation influence tactic, indicating that only very

104

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

little and inconsistent evidence relevant to this hypothesis is available in the existing research, and describes some relevant findings from two past studies. In this example, possibly because of the earlier noted constraints on the availability of relevant existing literature, from the text associated with the specification or explanation of the hypothesis, it does not seem to be adequately clear as to why or how the finding used from the existing research, which may constitute premises, suggest the relationship specified in the hypothesis, which may constitute the conclusion of a logical argument.

6. Complex Argument: Based on MulƟple Models It was noted in the preceding section that theory building for hypothesis specification can involve only deriving implications of a theoretical model already available in the existing research. A more complex form of theorizing as an extension of this option can involve using multiple, already available theoretical models to do theory building for specifying one or more new hypotheses. An example of this category is reflected in a paper by Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998: 660–662) who did theory building to hypothesize relationships between levels of antisocial behaviors in a group and the level of antisocial behaviors of each group member. They used one or more of the three models or theoretical perspectives—social learning theory, attraction-selection-attrition perspective, and social information processing approach—to derive support for their various hypotheses. I have used the label “complex argument” for this category and the label “simple argument” for Category 2 though both categories involve the use of existing model(s) to derive hypotheses. The difference in the labels used reflects the difference that this category uses multiple existing theories/models whereas Category 2 outlined earlier uses only one existing theory/model.

7. Complex Argument: Based on a Model and General Laws Category 3 outlined previously identifies a simple argument that is based on definitions, an existing model, and a general law. A variation of this

ObservaƟons and Examples

105

category could be in a form that uses an existing model and general laws, as in Category 3 outlined previously, but develops a series of arguments for specifying and/or explaining a hypothesis. Thus, the arguments can become relatively complex though the basis of the arguments is similar to that in Category 3. An example of theory building for hypothesis specification that uses a model and general laws to develop an elaborate chain of premises and reasoning to derive or to explain the conjectures that are specified as hypotheses is outlined in the following section. Heneman et al. (1989: 467) hypothesized a relationship between the quality of exchange of a supervisor with a subordinate and the supervisor’s attributions of causes for the subordinate’s effective and ineffective performance. The concept of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) was used to reflect the quality of exchange relationship of a supervisor with his subordinate and the LMX concept, LMX theory/model, and some general laws from the topic of attribution were used to specify and explain the study hypotheses. Of the three paragraphs Heneman et al. (1989: 467) used to describe theory building for hypothesis specification, the first paragraph outlines the premises that are used to derive the conclusions in the argument, the second paragraph outlines explanations for supporting the first premise used by them (that supervisors may make more favorable attributions for ingroup members than for outgroup members) in the first paragraph, and the third paragraph repeats the first premise and outlines the two hypotheses contained in the paper.

Some Comments on the ObservaƟons The aforementioned observations on the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification indicate certain features. First, theory building for hypothesis specification could vary in the extent of comprehensiveness. For instance, comprehensiveness could be low if the hypothesis being specified is a direct and straightforward implication of a theoretical model. Comprehensiveness could also be low if a hypothesis is a direct and straightforward implication of the definition of a concept in the existing literature. Second, premises used in theory building for hypothesis specification could come from conceptual views expressed in the existing literature or from empirical findings from the existing literature. Use of suitable phrases such as “views in the existing literature suggest” and

106

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

“empirical findings indicate” can distinguish conceptual views from empirical findings used as premises. Some of the premises could reflect just assumptions of authors that are, in general, reasonable and do not need to be supported by citing literature. Third, sometimes premises could come from a different topic area than one being studied and they are indirectly linked to the topic being studied. Fourth, sometimes either the conceptual views or empirical findings in the existing literature may not be adequate to specify exact hypotheses and authors may acknowledge this limitation in the description of theory building. Fifth, the reasoning associated with theory building may not strictly follow the form of a logical argument and may not reflect a pure form of deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Rather, the reasoning may take a form of narration that seems reasonable and may provide a resulting hypothesis which seems to be plausible in light of this narration. Sixth, in some cases, with some effort and transformation, the description associated with theory building for hypothesis specification may be depicted in the form of a standard deductive form of logical argument illustrated in the previous chapter. Guidlines for transforming theory-building description from practice into a standard form of logical argument were outlined in the section titled “An example from a journal article to be developed by a reader” toward the end of the last chapter.

Summary Various observations about the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification have been described earlier. These observations indicate that the reasoning and arguments associated with theory-building process tend to be considerably different from the formal logical argument forms such as those outlined in the preceding chapter. The description in the preceding chapter of the valid elementary forms of deductive arguments and the use of a few of such arguments in theory building for the specification of a hypothesis for the example in Figure 1.1, as outlined in the preceding chapter, can be compared with the illustrations outlined in this chapter. This comparison will reveal how the practice of theory-building process for hypothesis specification partly reflected in some of the above observations outlined in this chapter seems to move away from the strict forms of pure deductive arguments outlined in the preceding chapter. Thus, the preceding chapter can be viewed as outlining

ObservaĆ&#x;ons and Examples

107

the principles of theory-building process for hypothesis specification using logical reasoning while this chapter can be viewed as outlining the practice of theory building for hypothesis specification that combines some features of logical argument/reasoning with more general form of argument/reasoning. On the one hand, some scholars have outlined the logical reasoning features of hypothesis specification (for example, Lee, 1991; Mackenzie and House, 1978). On the other hand, some scholars have outlined features such as intuition and imagination (for example, Bourgeois, 1979; Dubin, 1976) that, in addition to logical aspects, are associated with the theory-building process. The illustrations in this chapter reflect the presence of both logical reasoning features and their adaptation and relaxation to meet the circumstances of theory-building process for hypothesis specification. These circumstances may include inadequate availability of empirical evidence (for example, as noted by Falbe and Yukl [1992] in an example outlined previously) a few but inconsistent past findings, and the likely presence of multiple causal factors (for example, as noted by Falbe and Yukl [1992] in example 5) as reflected in the preceding observations. These circumstances may limit the availability or quality of premises for theory building for hypothesis specification. The form of theory building for hypothesis specification reflected in the preceding examples can be related to different forms of theories discussed in Reynolds (2005a). Reynolds (2005a: 190) outlines three conceptions of theory namely, set-of-laws form, axiomatic form, and causal process form. A set-of-laws form of theory includes a set of laws (Reynolds, 2005a: 190). The description in Reynolds (2005a: 192â&#x20AC;&#x201C;193) indicates that an axiomatic theory includes a set of concept definitions, scope conditions, relational statements (axioms and propositions), and a logical system with which all concepts are related in the statements and with which propositions are derived from statements which could be axioms, other propositions, or combinations of axioms and other propositions. A causal-process form of theory includes concept definitions, statements describing situations in which the causal processes are likely to occur or be activated, and a collection of causal statements that describe the processes through which some variables affect other variables (Reynolds, 2005a: 196). Reynolds (2005a: 197) notes that most of the theories in social science seem to be developed in the manner of causal process form of theory. The theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in the preceding examples from the published literature seems to reflect a blend of

108

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

a simplified or approximated axiomatic form of theory building and a simplified causal process form specification. The presence of the features of adoption of premises and use of logic, though in differing degrees, to derive hypotheses in the theory building described in the aforementioned examples reflect a simplified and approximated version of axiomatic form of theory building. The explanations or rationales provided with the theory-building descriptions (for example, in the example from Heneman et al. [1989]) seem to be similar to the processes linking independent variables to dependent variables. Thus, the theory building for hypothesis specification in the above examples seems to reflect a simplified and approximated logical reasoning along with the use of some descriptions, in some cases, to outline processes through which the independent variables affect dependent variables.

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon: Some Extensions

his chapter outlines four extensions to the theory-building process outlined so far. First, theory building for specification of more complex hypotheses involving “mediation” and “moderation” is described. Second, the possibility of extending the inputs on theory building for hypothesis specification to theory building for specifying more complete theories and theoretical model is outlined. Third, a few of the other approaches to theory building are briefly described. Fourth, a few aspects of assessing goodness of a theory and of theory-building process are described.

Theory Building for Specifying More Complex Hypotheses: MediaƟon and ModeraƟon Theory Building for Specifying a Hypothesis Involving MediaƟon A simple hypothesis may specify a relationship between two variables such as “employees’ positive work experiences are positively associated with employees’ positive behaviors.” Though such a statement is purely a statement of association between two variables, based on the theory and underlying reasoning, one variable would typically be regarded as the dependent variable and another as independent variable. In this example, “positive work experiences” would be an independent variable

110

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

and “positive behavior” will be a dependent variable. Other labels such as “antecedent variable,” “predictor variable,” and “causal variable” may be occasionally used in practice in place of the label “independent variable.” Similarly, other labels such as “outcome variable,” “criterion variable,” and “effect variable” may be occasionally used in practice in place of the label “dependent variable.” It, however, may be noted that each of these labels may have different meanings. In a general sense, then, a hypothesis may specify a relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. A mediator variable reflects an intermediate link between an independent and dependent variable. It is a third variable that functions as a mediator variable between the relationship of an independent variable and a dependent variable. Baron and Kenny (1986: 1173) note that an independent variable has an effect on the dependent variable through a more immediate effect on the mediator variable. In this sense, the presence of a mediator variable between an independent variable and a dependent variable indicates that an independent variable first affects the mediator variable which in turn affects the dependent variable. Thus, when a third variable functions as a mediator variable between an independent variable and a dependent variable, it illustrates the process through which an independent variable influences a dependent variable. The role of a mediator variable in the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable is outlined in Figure 7.1. FIGURE 7.1 A Mediator Variable

Note: M represents a mediator between variables X and Y. Organizational commitment serves as a mediator in the relationship between positive work experiences and positive behavior.

Extensions of Theory Building

111

In Figure 7.1, the effect of positive work experiences on positive behaviors is transmitted through organizational commitment. Thus, organizational commitment serves as a mediating variable in the relationship between positive work experiences and positive behaviors. In order to specify a hypothesis that a variable serves as a mediator between an independent and a dependent variable, a few specific preliminary relationships between each of the three variables (independent variable, dependent variable, and mediator variable) need to be specified. Based on the description of mediation in Baron and Kenny (1986: 1177), for specifying mediation, three constituent relationships—relationship between an independent variable and dependent variable, between an independent variable and a mediator variable, and between a mediator variable and a dependent variable—need to be hypothesized and additionally, a rationale needs to be provided indicating why the mediator variable would be a generative mechanism between an independent variable and the dependent variable. Thus, in the above example, for specifying the mediation depicted in Figure 7.1, three hypotheses for three constituent relationships—between positive work experiences and organizational commitment, between positive work experiences and positive behaviors, and between organizational commitment and positive behaviors—need to be specified. Additionally, some rationale for why organizational commitment would mediate the effect of positive work experiences on positive behaviors would be needed. Thus, theory building for specifying mediation hypothesis in this example would involve theory building for the previously outlined three hypotheses and provision of some rationale for the mediating role of organizational commitment in the relationship between positive work experiences and positive behaviors. These three hypotheses can be regarded as specific preliminary hypotheses or constituent hypotheses that collectively support the specification of the mediation hypothesis. Some observations about the specification of mediation in practice can be noted. For specifying mediation, in practice, first the plausibility of three separate constituent or preliminary relationships is outlined using reasoning or past evidence. Theory building for each of these three preliminary hypotheses would be similar to the process of theory building for hypothesis specification described in the preceding parts of this book. After the specification of the three preliminary hypotheses, some rationale is provided explaining the plausibility of the sequence of mediation connecting the independent variable to the dependent variable

112

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

through the mediator variable. Based on this, the mediation hypothesis is specified indicating that the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is mediated by the mediator variable. Two examples from the published literature are mentioned next to describe a few instances of the practice of specifying mediation. One example of mediation specification is reflected in the works of Moorman et al. (1998: 351–352) who specified a mediation hypothesis that the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior will be mediated by perceived organizational support. Moorman et al. (1998) first did theory building to specify a hypothesis about the relationship between the independent variable (procedural justice) and the mediator variable (perceived organizational support). The other two relationships associated with the specification of a mediation—between the independent variable (procedural justice) and the dependent variable (organizational citizenship behavior), and between the mediator variable (perceived organizational support) and the dependent variable (organizational citizenship behavior)—were noted as having been observed in the empirical findings in the existing research and, hence, were not specified separately as hypotheses in this paper. Based on these three relationships, Moorman et al. (1998: 351–352) specified their second hypothesis, which was a mediation hypothesis and which specified that the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior will be mediated by perceived organizational support. Thus, in this example, all three relationships associated with mediation—between independent variable and mediating variable, between independent variable and dependent variable, and between mediating variable and the dependent variable—are indicated as plausible and in addition an explanation is provided outlining why the mediator variable is likely to mediate the independent variable’s effect on the dependent variable. Another example incorporating a variation in specifying mediation is reflected in Masterson et al. (2000: 740–741) who specified that social-exchange variables (perceived organizational support and leader member exchange) will mediate the relationship between justice (procedural and interactional justice) and outcome variables (for example, organizational citizenship behaviors). Masterson et al. (2000: 740) first specified hypotheses outlining the relationships between independent variables and dependent variables. Subsequently, Masterson et al. (2000: 741) noted that the existing research has already indicated support for the relationship between independent variable (justice) and mediator variable (social exchange). Finally, Masterson et al. (2000: 741) specified

Extensions of Theory Building

113

two hypotheses of mediation indicating that the relationship between justice variables and outcome variables will be mediated by social-exchange variables. In this example, only two of the three constituent relationships associated with mediation—between independent variable and dependent variable and between independent variable and mediator variable—are specified or noted and the mediation relationship between three sets of variables is hypothesized, while the third relationship—between the mediator variable and the dependent variable—is neither explicitly hypothesized nor noted as a part of specifying the mediation process.

Theory Building for Specifying a Hypothesis Involving ModeraƟon Baron and Kenny (1986: 1174) note that a moderator variable alters either strength or direction, or both strength and direction of a relationship between two other variables. This suggests that a variable can adopt the role of a moderator variable with reference to a relationship specified between two other variables (for example, a relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable). As noted earlier, a hypothesis is typically a statement of relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. There may be cases when the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable may become stronger or weaker when another third variable has certain values. For example, let us consider a hypothetical variable labeled as “work-behavior freedom” reflecting the extent to which an employee has the freedom of choice in performing various behaviors in the workplace. If the relationship between organizational commitment and positive behaviors is stronger for employees with high work-behavior freedom than for employees with low work-behavior freedom, then employee work-behavior freedom can be viewed as a variable moderating the relationship between organizational commitment and positive behaviors or a moderator variable in the relationship between organizational commitment and positive behaviors. Using this hypothetical example, a typical pictorial representation of a moderator variable is provided in Figure 7. 2. In the above example, the moderator variable changed the strength of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. However, a moderator variable’s effect could also be such that the direction of the relationship between the independent variable

114

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies FIGURE 7.2 A Moderator Variable

Note: The representation in the figure indicates that work-behavior freedom (moderator variable) alters the strength of the relationship between organizational commitment (independent variable) and positive behaviors (dependent variable).

and dependent variable changes at different levels of a moderator variable. For instance, in the previously outlined hypothetical example, if the relationship between employees’ organizational commitment and employees’ positive behaviors is positive when some moderator variable has certain values and is negative when that moderator variable has certain other set of values, then the moderator variable’s effect is in the form of altering the direction of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. A moderator variable is a role that a variable plays in a particular relationship because of its influence in terms of altering the strength or direction of the relationship. The same variable that serves the role of a moderator variable in a relationship may be irrelevant in another relationship, may be an independent variable in yet another relationship, or may be a dependent variable in yet another relationship. Theory building for specifying a moderator hypothesis would require specification of some rationale indicating that the moderator variable alters the strength or direction of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. In the above example, theory building may include outlining that: (i) organizational commitment is a positive work-attitude, (ii) positive attitudes are likely to result in positive behaviors, (iii) positive attitudes are more likely to result in positive behavior when the individual has freedom to choose his behaviors, (iv) organizational commitment, being a positive work-attitude, is positively related with positive behaviors, (v) in the workplace, work-behavior freedom allows an employee to choose his/her work behaviors, (vi) employees with high

Extensions of Theory Building

115

work-behavior freedom would be more in a position to perform positive behaviors consistent with their organizational commitment (positive work-attitudes) than would be employees with low work-behavior freedom, (vii) the relationship between organizational commitment (a positive work-attitude) and positive behaviors will be stronger for employees with high work-behavior freedom than for employees with low workbehavior freedom, and (viii) work-behavior freedom will moderate the relationship between organizational commitment and positive behaviors. It may be noted that some of the premises, such as the first and second, can be skipped if one assumes that these are accepted principles in the literature. The preceeding textual description is outlined as an approximate illustration of the likely reasoning required to specify a moderation hypothesis and this description can be made more precise and structured to make the structure of logical arguments more consistent. Further, while in the preceeding example the moderator strengthens the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable, a moderator can also weaken the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. An example of specification of a hypothesis involving moderation is outlined next. An example of theory building for specification of a moderation hypothesis can be noted in Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998: 660–661) who, for specifying a moderation hypothesis, first specified a hypothesis stating that the level of antisocial behavior in a group will have a positive association with the level of antisocial behavior of individual members in the group. Subsequently, they specified two moderation hypotheses by outlining the influence of two moderator variables—likelihood of punishment and closeness of supervision. Theory building to specify the moderation hypotheses included in Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998: 662) reasoned that a group’s antisocial behaviors will induce antisocial behaviors from individual group members to a lesser degree when individual group members perceive the possibility of organizational punishment for antisocial behaviors. Then the theory building reasoned that close supervision of employees and threat of punishment are two means used by managers that can convey to individual group members that punishment from an organization will occur for their antisocial behaviors. Based on this reasoning, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998: 662) specified two moderation hypotheses that the relationship between the level of a group’s antisocial behavior and individual group member’s antisocial behavior will be moderated (that is, weakened) by closeness of supervision (one moderation hypothesis) and by likelihood of punishment (another moderation hypothesis).

116

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Extending Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon to Theory Building for Developing More Comprehensive Models The theory-building process associated with an individual hypothesis such as the one included in the hypothetical example specifying that organizational commitment is positively associated with positive behaviors (Figure 1.1) can be extended to specify more comprehensive models. For example, more independent variables can be added along with organizational commitment to explain the occurrence of positive behaviors. In such a more comprehensive model, there will be one hypothesis specifying relationship between each independent variable and the dependent variable of positive behavior. Thus, several hypotheses can be obtained by carrying out a separate theory-building process for each hypothesis in a manner similar to that associated with theory building outlined for the single hypothesis specifying the positive relationship between organizational commitment and positive behavior. Further, the model can be made more comprehensive by adding mediating and moderating variables to the direct relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variables by using a theory-building process similar to that outlined previously. Thus, the theory-building approach outlined for hypothesis specification can be used, through more extensive application, to specify more comprehensive models involving multiple relationships specifying direct effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable, mediating effects of variables in transmitting the effect of independent variables on dependent variables, and moderating effects of variables on the relationships between independent variables and dependent variables.

Extending Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon to Theory Building for Specifying Simple Theories Theories that propose to depict relatively simple or focused phenomena can be developed by extending the approach to theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in this book. If a part of the hypothetical example outlined earlier in Figure 1.1 can be expanded as outlined in Figure 7.3 then it may be more appropriately labeled as “a model or theoretical model of the differential effects of various forms of commitment on employees’ positive behaviors.”

Extensions of Theory Building

117

FIGURE 7.3 A HypotheƟcal Example of a TheoreƟcal Model

Suppose the following hypotheses are specified as a part of the theoretical model in Figure 7.3. The first hypothesis is that employees’ affective commitment is likely to be positively associated with employees’ intent to benefit an organization. The second hypothesis is that continuance commitment or calculative commitment will not be positively associated with employees’ intent to benefit an organization. The third hypothesis is that intent to benefit the organization will be positively associated with positive behavior. The fourth hypothesis is that affective commitment is positively associated with positive behaviors. Then some explanation for why intent to benefit the organization will serve as the mediator between affective commitment and positive behavior can be provided. Such explanation along with the preceding four individual hypotheses can then be used to specify the fifth and a mediation hypothesis that intent to benefit the organization will mediate the relationship between affective commitment and positive behavior. Theory building for specifying hypothesis one to four outlined with the model in Figure 7.3 can be done through theory-building process outlined in the examples in the preceding chapter and theory building for the fifth and a mediation hypothesis can be done through the theory-building process of mediation outlined earlier in this chapter. Thus, this illustration indicates that the theory-building process for hypothesis specification outlined in the preceding parts of this book can be used to specify interrelated hypotheses that can constitute a simple theoretical model or narrow-scoped theory. Examples of such relatively simple theories from published works could be Conger and Kanungo’s (1987) theory of charismatic leadership

118

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

or Liden and Mitchell’s (1988) theory of ingratiatory behaviors. Conger and Kanungo (1987) specified a series of hypotheses as a part of their theory of charismatic leadership. Liden and Mitchell (1988) specified a series of propositions as a part of their theory of ingratiatory behaviors. These simple theories can be contrasted with more complex theories such as Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational leadership. Theory building required for specifying simple theories can be done through an extended application of the process of theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in this book. However, because of such theory-building efforts’ focus on theory building for conceptually representing a phenomenon rather than specifying a hypothesis for immediate empirical verification, the nature of concepts, premises, and reasoning associated with them may be more abstract, comprehensive and complex. Thus, while the theory-building process outlined in this book focuses on hypothesis specification, which typically will form one of the parts of an empirical paper, it can be extended to specify narrowly focused theoretical models and to build simple theories that can constitute a conceptual paper.

Some Other Inputs on and Approaches to Theory Building Some works have outlined various inputs on and approaches to theory building. All of these may not be applicable to this book as its focus is specifically on theory building for hypothesis specification. However, as the theory-building process outlined in this paper can be extended to develop simple theories, some of such works are indicated in the following section so that readers may get some exposure to and be aware of these inputs and approaches. Lundberg (1976: 8–9) notes that hypothesis specification can occur through an exploratory approach, through an approach involving deliberate search, and through an approach that extends previous research. If one goes by the name alone, then the hypothetico-deductive approach included in the deliberate-search approaches category outlined by Lundberg (1976: 9) seems to come close to the approach outlined in this book. However, the actual description provided in Lundberg (1976: 9) for this approach is very brief and indicates that in this approach, implications or predictions are drawn by jointly using two or more empirically observed findings or principles suggested by common sense.

Extensions of Theory Building

119

Bourgeois III (1979: 443–444) indicates that he is attempting to outline a process for developing middle-range theories and includes the processes of induction and deduction in his description of theory development process. The other steps in research process such as delimiting the topic being studied and conclusion specification are also included in Bourgeois III’s (1979: 444) description of the proposed process. Though Bourgeois III’s (1979) suggestions pertain to theorizing for specifying middle-range theories rather than to theory building for hypothesis specification, which may have more narrow focus, some of the steps outlined in Bourgeois III (1979: 444) can be related to the approach outlined in this book. The step of delimiting the topic of study is likely to facilitate domain specification in the process of theory building for hypothesis specification or the domain specification may help in delimiting the topic, the step of doing induction is likely to be associated with deriving premises from the existing literature, possibly through some processing of generalization, and the step of doing deduction is likely to be associated with deriving conclusions (hypotheses) from the premises in the process of theory building for hypothesis specification. Weick (1989) outlines an approach to theory building to facilitate the development of interesting theories and includes the steps of problem statement specification, generation of thought trials (conjectures) to generate options to solve the problem, application of selection criteria to the conjectures generated from thought trials, and retention of certain conjectures based on the outcome of the application of selection criteria. If conjectures can be regarded as potential hypotheses, then this approach can be viewed as a way of generating hypotheses. This approach involves the use of imagination in the step of thought trial or conjecture generation and the use of discipline in consistent application of selection criteria. This approach suggests that the essence of a theorist’s past experiences is contained in his assumptions and when conjectures are compared with these assumptions, various reactions from the theorist emerge which can be used by the theorist as guides for deciding which conjectures to retain. One way of linking these aspects of this approach with the approach reflected in this book is to view this approach as a creative and personalized theory-building process for generating interesting theories whereas the approach outlined in the book is formal, but practical approach to generate plausible hypotheses grounded in the literature and reasoning.

120

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Assessment of Goodness of Theory Building and Theories Theory building outlined in this book has a limited focus on hypothesis specification. Therefore, some aspects that determine goodness of theory-building process and theories in general are likely to be applicable to the theory-building process and its outcome—hypothesis—outlined in the book. Some of the features that are likely to reflect or determine the goodness of theory building for hypothesis specification and of the resulting hypotheses were outlined at various places in this book. In particular, at various places in the book, some features associated with domain, concepts, definition statements, variables, premises, reasoning, propositions, and hypotheses have been outlined that can influence the goodness of the theory-building process for hypothesis specification. For example, it was outlined that different types of premises are likely to have different degrees of credibility. Similarly, the features of good definitions were discussed. Description of such aspects in the preceding parts of the book may indicate some aspects that can be considered in assessing the goodness of theory-building process done for hypothesis specification. There are various works (for example, Bacharach, 1989; Sutton and Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989) that contain suggestions about the aspects that can be considered in assessing goodness of a theory. For example, Whetten’s (1989: 494) view of the aspects of good theory development in general suggests considering aspects such as comprehensiveness of literature base used, reasonableness of assumptions made, appropriateness of the logic applied, and maturity applied to the thinking process. These features of theory development and theory in general are also likely to be applicable to theory building for hypothesis specification. The process of theory building outlined in this book suggests that for appropriateness of the theory-building process, a researcher should be thoroughly familiar with the relevant literature on the topic under study, thus pointing out that the literature review process should be appropriately carried out before and during the process of theory building for hypothesis specification. Literature review is required for various steps in theory-building process such as specifying the domain of a theory, providing concept definitions, and adopting premises. Thus, the appropriateness in the review and use of the relevant literature on the topic under study is likely to influence the appropriateness of theorybuilding process for hypothesis specification and the resulting hypotheses. The role of literature review in theory building or hypothesis specification is noted in various works.

Extensions of Theory Building

121

For instance, Bourgeois III (1979: 446) suggests the need to connect to the literature, which in his view reflects the observations of others in the form of documented literature. In addressing the sequencing aspect of the development of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas and use of literature, Bourgeois III (1979: 446) suggests that the theoretician might begin with his prior ideas, develop them a little, examine the literature to assess the extent of support to the developed ideas that is available in the literature, and then he may do the needed revisions in the ideas as suggested by this assessment. The need for the familiarity with literature base is also reflected in Lundbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1976: 8) suggestion about the need for having thorough knowledge about the topic being examined as a prerequisite for hypothesis specification.

Placing Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in the Larger Process The preceding description and the description in the preceding parts of this book indicate that theory building for hypothesis specification involves the steps including literature review, knowledge gap or research question identification, adoption of premises, development or adoption of concepts, use of reasoning, and generation of conclusions which then constitute the hypothesis. Various criteria for assessing the goodness of this process can be applied. Some of these are outlined in the preceding section. This entire process of theory building for hypothesis specification forms just one of the parts in the larger process of science and research as depicted in Figure 1.2. The tasks or steps involved in the theory-building process are outlined in the chapter on the process of theory building for hypothesis specification. In addition, certain tasks such as identifying a research gap, choosing a research question, and doing literature review prior to and during the theory-building process are likely to be associated with theory building for hypothesis specification. In this sense, the theory-building process outlined in this book forms one set of tasks or steps in a larger sequence that would have activities such as research topic identification, literature review, and research question generation preceding the theory-building process for hypothesis specification. Also, the theory-building process for hypothesis specification and the resulting hypotheses would form only one part of the overall research process as outlined in Figure 1.2.

122

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaĆ&#x;on in OrganizaĆ&#x;onal Studies

Summary The process of theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in the preceding parts of this book can be extended to specify more complex hypotheses involving mediation and moderation and also for specifying simple or narrow-scoped theories. While theory building for hypothesis specification will form one of the parts of an empirical paper, when this theory-building process is extended to develop simple theories, the description of the resulting theory (including the reasoning and premises) can become a complete conceptual paper by itself. Various criteria can be applied to assess the goodness of the process of theory building for hypothesis specification and the goodness of the resulting hypotheses. Such criteria have been outlined in the descriptions of various parts in the book and in this chapter. In the actual research work, other activities such as literature review will need to be carried out in addition to carrying out the procedure for theory building for hypothesis specification outlined in this book and this process of theory building for hypothesis specification will form one of the parts in the overall research process outlined in Figure 1.2.

References

Adams, J.S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press. Aquino, K., Lewis, M.U., and Bradfield, M. 1999. Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073–1091. Bacharach, S.B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515. Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D.A. 1986. The Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Baronov, D. 2004. Conceptual foundations of social research methods. London: Paradigm Publisher. Barr, S.H. and Pawar, B.S. 1995. Organizational citizenship behavior: Domain specifications for three middle range theories. Best Paper Proceedings, National Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver, Canada. Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press. Bourgeois, L.J. III. 1979. Toward a method of middle-range theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 4, 443–447. Cederblom, J. and Paulsen, D.W. 2001. Critical reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational setting. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647. Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. 2002. Introduction to logic. New Delhi, India: Pearson Education, Inc. Daft, R.L. 1983. The learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 8, 539–546. DiMaggio, P.J. 1995. Comments on “What theory is not.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391–397. Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19, 230–251.

124

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H., and Huber, G.P. 1993. Fit, effectiveness, and equifinality: A test of two configurational approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1196–1250. Dubin, R. 1969. Theory building. New York: Free Press. ———. 1976. Theory building in applied areas. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17–39). Chicago: Rand McNally. Eastman, K.K. and Pawar, B.S. 2005. An integrative view of and a common conceptual space for employee extra-role behaviors. In D.L. Turnipseed (Ed.), A handbook on organizational citizenship behavior: A review of ‘Good Soldier’ activity in organizations (pp. 25–46). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Evered, R.D. 2005. A typology of explicative models. In C.C. Lundberg and C.A. Young (Eds.), Foundations for inquiry (pp. 198–202). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Falbe, C.M. and Yukl, G. 1992. Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combination of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652. Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130. Hage, J. 1965. An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 289–320. Hambrick, D. 1984. Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: Some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Management, 10, 27–41. Hempel, C.G. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press. Heneman, R.L., Greenberger, D.B., and Anonyuo, C. 1989. Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 466–476. House, R.J. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338. Hurley, P.J. 2003. A concise introduction to logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning. Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishers. Kerlinger, F.N. 1988. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Klein, K.J. and Zedeck, S. 2004. Introduction to the special section on theoretical models and conceptual analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 931–933. Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, D.S. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669. Lee, A.S. 1991. Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 4, 342–365. Liden, R.C. and Mitchell, T.R. 1988. Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572–587.

References

125

Lundberg, C.C. 1976. Hypothesis creation in organizational behavior research. Academy of Management Review, 1, 5–12. Mackenzie, K.D. and House, R. 1978. Paradigms development in social sciences: A proposed research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 3, 6–23. Masterson, S.S. Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., and Taylor, M.S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748. Mayer, R.C. and Schoorman, F.D. 1992. Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional mode of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 671–685. Mayer, R.C. and Schoorman, F.D. 1998. Differentiating antecedents of organizational commitment: A test of March and Simon’s model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 15–28. McFarlin, D.B. and Rice, R.W. 1992. The role of facet importance as a moderator in job satisfaction processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 41–54. McKinney, K.D. 1966. Constructive typology and social theory. New York: AppeltonCentury Crofts. Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S., and Hinings, C.R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175–1195. Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw Hill. Miner, J.B. 1984. The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 9, 296–306. Mintzberg, H.T. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., and Niehoff, B.P. 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and OCB? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357. Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605–621. Morrow, P.C. 1983. Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 486–500. Organ, D.W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. ———. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–87. Osigweh, C.A.B. 1989. Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 14, 579–594. Pawar, B.S. and Eastman, K.K. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80–109.

126

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Reynolds, P.D. 2005a. Three conceptions of theory. In C.C. Lundberg and C.A. Young (Eds), Foundations for inquiry (pp. 180–197). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. ———. 2005b. Two contrasting strategies. In C.C. Lundberg and C.A. Young (Eds), Foundations for inquiry (pp. 224–230). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Robinson, S.L. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672. Stone, E.F. 1978. Research methods in organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., and Dienesch, R.M. 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802. Van Maanen, J.V., Sorenson, J.B., and Mitchell, T.R. 2007. The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1145–1154. Weick, K.E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14, 516–531. ———. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–390. Whetten, D.A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495.

Author Index

127

Author Index

Adams, J.S., 30 Aquino, K,. 101 Bacharach, S.B., 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 21, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 44, 45, 51, 52, 57, 59, 61, 69, 70, 96, 120 Baron, R.M., 110, 111, 113 Baronov, D., 83, 84, 92, 95 Barr, S.H., 38, 40 Bass, B.M., 10, 64, 118 Bourgeois III, L.J., 8, 9, 85, 95, 119, 121 Bourgeois, S., 107 Cederblom, J., 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 95 Cohen, C., 30, 53, 66, 69, 70, 80, 82, 83, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95 Conger, J.A,. 60, 117, 118 Copi, I.M., 30, 53, 66, 69, 70, 80, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 94, 95 Daft, R.L., 5, 8, 9 DiMaggio, P.J., 8 Dubin, R., 2, 7, 10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 79, 95, 107 Eastman, K.K., 38, 65, 66, 74 Evered, R.D., 30 Falbe, C.M., 103, 107 Folger, R., 40 Glick, W.H., 73, 75

Hage, J., 60 Hambrick, D., 70 Hempel, C.G., 16, 22 Heneman, R.L., 105, 108 House, R. J., 23, 31, 59, 60, 64, 84, 107 Hurley, P.J., 30, 66, 69, 70, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95 Kanungo, R.N., 60, 117, 118 Kaplan, A., 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 66 Kenny, D.A., 110, 111, 113 Kerlinger, F.N., 5, 7, 16, 21, 23, 29, 30, 31, 36, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 59, 60, 66, 70 Klein, K.J., 9 Konovsky, M.A., 40, 76 Lee, A.S., 5, 10, 27, 80, 81, 83, 92, 95, 107 Liden, R.C., 58, 60, 118 Lundberg, C.C., 9, 10, 118, 121 Mackenzie, K.D., 23, 31, 73, 74, 84, 107 Masterson, S.S., 112 Mayer, R.C., 18, 67, 68, 99 McFarlin, D.B., 100 Meyer, A.D., 74, 75 Miles, R.E., 75 Miner, J.B., 9 Mintzberg, H.T., 75 Mitchell, T.R., 58, 60, 118

128

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

Moorman, R.H., 49, 112 Morgan, G., 10, 23 Morrow, P.C., 67 O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., 19, 104, 115 Organ, D.W., 10, 38, 40, 48, 66, 68 Osigweh, C.A.B., 9, 44, 45, 53, 66 Paulson, D.W., 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 95 Pawar, B.S., 38, 40, 65, 66, 74 Pugh, D.S., 76 Reynolds, P.D., 6, 7, 8, 41, 107 Rice, R.W., 100 Robinson, S.L., 19, 104, 115

Schoorman, F.D., 18, 67, 68, 99 Snow, C.C., 75 Staw, B.M., 3, 4, 8, 9, 120 Stone, E.F., 16, 22 Sutton, R.I., 3, 4, 8, 9, 120 Van Dyne, L., 69 Van Maanen, J.V., 8 Weick, K.E., 8, 26, 29, 41, 119 Whetten, D.A., 2, 3, 8, 9, 30, 36, 37, 39, 46, 55, 56, 78, 79, 87, 92, 120 Yukl, G., 103, 107 Zedeck, S., 9

Subject Index

129

Subject Index

‘actual reality’, 5–6, 15–20, 23–4, 32, 57 developing knowledge about, 19 analyzer strategy, 75 anti-social behavior, in organization, 19, 115 applied psychology, theory development in, 9 “argument”, complex, and empirical findings, 103–5 and reasoning, 80–1 simple, 99–103 “sound”, 86 for theory building, 106 validity of, 86 attitudinal antecedents, of employees, 36 attraction-selection-attrition perspective, 19, 104 attributes, configuration of, 74 axiomatic form, of theory, 107 behavior(s), and attitudes towards an object, 93 negative, 2, 3 and performance towards an object, 90 political, 3 positive, 2, 3 see also extra-role behavior, political behavior, positive behavior belief, 6 and knowledge, 16 statements, 17

bipolar dimension, 74 boundaries, of a theory, 39, 62 as delimiting its domain, 37, 39 case-study-based research, 11 causal process form, of theory, 107 charismatic leadership, theory of, 117–18 citations, to research work, by researcher, 67 commitment(s), concept, 54, 66–7 continuance, 100 definitions, existing model and general law, 99, 101 forms of, 68, 100, 116 to organization. 51, 53, 55, 87–88, 91, 94, 115 and positive attitude to organization, 94 and positive behaviour, 57–58, 61, 94, 114, 116 -related concepts, 67 value, 100 concept(s), 3, 28, 62, 75 constitutive, definition of, 70 and constructs, 45–6 definitions and descriptions of, 44–45, 67 empirical, 44 facilitating aspects of reality, 5, 41, 46–50 of concrete reality, 48

130

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

identification, for theory-building, 96 labels and, 53 and levels of abstractness, 49–51 role in theory building, 46–50 and theory building, 46–50, 66 as units of theory, 36, 40–51 concept specification, 66–75 approaches to, 70–5 configurations as an approach to, 74–75 ideal types and related approaches to, 73–74 and theory building, 66 typology approaches to, 70–73 conceptual literature, and empirical findings, 99, 101–103 ‘conceptual research’, 5, 60 ‘conjectures’, in a theory, 4, 7, 14, 75, 78, 119 for hypothesis specification, 86 and observation, 6 as tentative beliefs, 18 types of relationships in, 57 ‘construct’, label, 45 as a type of ‘concept’, 45–46 continuance commitment, 18 data analysis, 4, 32 data collection, 4, 32 “deductive argument”, 80, 85, 89, 106 “deductive-nomological” method, components of, 83–84, 95 “deductive reasoning”, 80, 83, 91, 93–96 definition, concepts for theory building, 96 constitutive type of, 53, 54 operational type of, 53, 45 definitional statements, as unit of theory, 36, 53–54 62, 79 and premises, 76, 79 ‘diligent employee’, 45, 47

domain(s), aspects of reality and choice of, 65 as delimiting reality, 37 specification for theory-building, 96 as unit of theory, 36–40, 62 empirical concepts, 44, 46 empirical research/study, 60 on data collection, 4,5 and development of hypothesis, 97, 98 empirical verification process, 33–34 employee behavior, in organizations, 2–3 negative forms of, 69 see also behavior employee continuance commitment, and absenteeism, 100 employee deviance, and negative affectivity, 101 employee participation, phenomenon of, 42–44 ‘employee performance’, concept of, 37, 39, 77 employee types, typology of, 71, 72 equity theory, 30 exchange relationship, between supervisor and subordinates, 105 existing model, use in hypothesis specification, 99, 100 extra-role behavior, of employees, 36, 48, 66 extra-role performance, of employees, 37, 38 general laws, as component of deductive nomological method, 83–84 general management, 9 genus and difference, method of, 66, 69, 70 human resource management, 9 “hypothesis”, 3, 10, 62

Subject Index

development, from premises and reasoning, 90–93 and independent and independent variables, 113 propositions and, 58–61 and relationship between variables, 57–61 specification, theory building for, 4–5, 13, 15, 16, 78–79, 105 as unit of theory, 36, 57–61 hypothetico-deductive approach, 83, 85, 95, 118 “ideal type”, concepts, 73–74 theories, 73 inductive arguments, 82–83 inductive reasoning, in theory building, 92–96 “inferential statements”, 84 interrelated concepts, conceptually, 72 interpretive approach, 10 justice variable, and outcome variables, 113

131

literature review, for theory building, 11, 69, 120–121 logic/logical, argument, 88–89 0, 96, 99, 102 positivism, 10–11 and reasoning in theory building, 79–81, 102, 107, 108 role of, 79 logical arguments, 80–87 in deriving hypothesis, 87–90 valid logical reasoning, 87 logical reasoning, 83, 90–93 forms of, 81–84 classical, 81 deductive, 81, 83 indicative, 81, 83, 84 mediation hypothesis, 112 mediator variable, role of, 110 model, theory and, 2 “moderation”, for hypothesis specification, 109–115 motivation, 15, 76

knowledge, 16–17 -generation process, 21, 22, 24 relationship with actual reality and theory, 14–20 label, 60, 98 concepts as, 41, 45, 53 definition and conceptual meaning of, 72–73 language, theory and, use of, 1 laws, formulation of, 84 “experimental”, 84 general, 84–85 ‘of interaction’, 55 “practical”, 84, 85 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), concept of, 105 leadership, path goal theory of, 59, 64 transformational, 74

‘natural science’ model, in research, 5, 7, 12 “negative behavior” 41, 66, 67, 69 ‘observational concepts’, 44–46 operational definition, 66 and commitment, 53, 54 organizational behavior, in research, 9 organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), 10, 38, 40, 41, 48, 65–68 personality-related aspects and, 65 procedural justice’s relationship with, 112 trust and, 77 ‘organizational commitments’, 2, 3, 16, 37, 41, 46, 47, 54, 111 as a concept, 53, 67 definition of, 66

132

Theory Building for Hypothesis SpecificaƟon in OrganizaƟonal Studies

forms of, 68 continuance commitment, 68 value commitment, 68 and ‘positive behavior’ of employees, 55, 58, 113–14, 116 as a variable, 52, 53 organizational concepts, types of, 100 organizational receptivity continuum, 74 “organizational studies”, 9, 15 organizational theory, 9 ‘paradigm’, 23–24 parsimony, definition of, 59–60 participation, as a concept, 49–50 ‘participative organizational functioning’, 43 “polar types”, of organizational context, 74, 75 political activism, concept of, 47 “political behavior”, 37, 38, 41, 46 concept, 48–50 positive attitudes, 91, 94 “positive behavior”, 28, 37, 38, 41, 46, 91 concept of, 49 organizational commitment and, 87–88, 113–14, 116, 117 organizational support and, 49 and positive work experience, 111 predictions, explanations and, 31–33 “premises”, 62, 81, 85, 89, 91–92 96, 115 based on definitions and assumptions, 99–100 forms of, 56 specification of, in a theory, 75–78 as unit of theory, 36, 54–56 presumed reality, 5, 6, 17–20, 22, 24 procedural justice, and organizational citizenship behavior, 112 and positive behavior, 49

“propositions” 3, 10, 23, 33, 55, 93, 118 distinction between hypothesis and, 58–62 hypothesis and, 59–61, 78, 80, 85 as special type of statement, 56–58 specification of, 78–79 as unit of theory, 36, 56–57 puzzle-solving activity, 10 quantitative research, 11 reactor strategy, 75 real phenomenon, in a theory, 1, 2, 5, 22, 28 reality, actual reality and, 6, 23 aspects of, 41, 64–66 concepts facilitating aspects of, 46–47 concepts facilitating economy in representing, 47–48 concepts facilitating occurrences in the, 47 presumed view of, 5, 6, 32 theory in context of knowledge and, 14–20 theory as representing, 1, 27–28 research, 4, 14, 68 conceptual, 14, 22 definition of, 22 empirical, 22 generating knowledge, 15, 21 identification of topic for, 65 theory and, 7, 22–23 research papers, conceptual papers and, 97 empirical papers and, 97 observation and examples from, 97, 98 research process, 5–7 researcher(s), 2, 6, 10, 16, 18, 19, 23, 38, 65, 69, 76–77 and new definition for a concept, 68

Subject Index

options available to, 67 specifying a concept, 69 science, 1, 15, 121 and development of objective knowledge, 16–17 goals of, 30–33 model of, 5, 7, 12 as a process, 21 and research, 20 and theory, 20–22 scientific knowledge, in organizational studies, 6, 7 scientific research, 5, 24 self-esteem, 42 set-of-law form, of theory, 107 skill upgradation, 76 social exchange perspective, 76–77 social exchange variables, 113 social information processing approach/ theory, 19, 104 social learning theory, 19,104 specification, concept of, 53 “syllogism”, categorical, 82, 83, 85, 87–88 as a form of valid argument, 81–82 hypothetical, 82, 85, 91 terms, categories of, 42–44 theoretical/universal concepts, 44 ‘theoretical models’, 2, 3 theoretical perspective, credibility of, 77 theory(ies), applicability of, 3 bridging conceptual and empirical research, 32–23 as collection of conjectures/ hypothesis, 12 in the context of knowledge, 14–20 definition of, 28–29 and empirical verification, 33–34 forms of, 8

133

and goals of science, 30–32 goodness of, 12, 13, 33, 120, 122 introduction to, 1–5 and model, 2 as representation, of empirical world, 30 of real world, 15 of reality, 25, 34 and research, 7, 22–23 role of, 14, 30–34 science theory, 20–22, 24 as set of interrelated statements, 26–27 and theory-building, need for, 5–7 theory building, 4–7,12, 64 to development comprehensive models, 116 goodness of, 120 inputs, need for, 7–11 process, 12, 55–56, 60 specification, 10–11 and moderation, 113–15 for simple theories, 116–18 theory and, 5–7 typology, class/cell in a, 72 dimensions of, 71 and taxonomies, 74 transformational leadership, theory of, 10 unproductive employees, organizational response to, 76 “units”, of a theory, 13, 36 valid reasoning, 82 value commitments, of employees to an organization, 18 variables, independent and dependent, 108, 112, 116 relationship between, 75 as unit of theory, 36, 51–53