I used to describe myself as someone who hated theory. I found theory too abstract, and when I dug in to understand more, I found myself confused by contradicting definitions and seemingly endless terminology lacking clear explanations. Through several years of doctoral study, I can finally say I see the value in theory and strive to demonstrate this value in my own research. In this post, I will review a research question I am currently exploring and how that aligns with research paradigms and methodologies. I will also explore how my understanding of theory might be applied to this research.
As part of my doctoral work, I am considering the following research question: What impact does the design, delivery, and leadership of the PROPEL model have on teams and innovation at the American College of Education?
The constructivist paradigm, which is “concerned with meaning, researcher-respondent rapport, co-construction of the research findings…, practical application of research findings, and reciprocity between and among researcher and respondents” (Manning & Stage, 2014, p. 22), best aligns with my research question. This alignment reflects my desire to expose the multiple perspectives of teams and how the varying team contexts relate to innovation. I also work closely with team members who are research participants, and my role as researcher in this work regularly changes from participant to participant-observer to observer. By studying the phenomenon of team innovation development, I hope to generate themes from data that can be used to expand knowledge and create a model for an active learning organization. These goals align with key components of the constructivist paradigm including inductive meaning development, socially constructed context specific meaning, theory creation through interpretation, and close co-constructed researcher-participant relationships. Two major challenges relate to this paradigm including how I, as a researcher, separate my own values from the meaning I derive from the data. Countering this challenge requires acknowledging my own assumptions and values and using validation methods during data collection and analysis. Another challenge is that due to the context-specific nature of my work, the results will have limited generalizability.
As a counter point to how well suited the constructivist paradigm is for my work, the positivist paradigm is an approach that would not fit well with my research. The positivist paradigm is a scientific-based approach used to collect data to verify hypotheses (Manning & Stage, 2014). Common features include explanation, prediction, and control, and it is best used with a phenomenon viewed as having a singular reality that is not context-specific. Researcher-participant relationships should be independent, objective, or separate, and the researcher should isolate their values and the values of respondents from the research. Additionally, research based on the positivist paradigm is based on existing theory. Compared to the details of my research described above, these features that distinguish positivist from other research paradigms would make it a poor choice for my exploration of my research question.
Based in a constructivist paradigm, my research will follow an action research approach including primarily qualitative methods such as interviews, document analysis, and observations. These methods will enable me to explore my research questions through the experiences of participants, which will enable me to generate themes to interpret and explain innovation development in higher education. Unlike a quantitative method such as experimental research, which would require random sampling and a control group, primarily qualitative methods fit well with my setting and lack of complete control of who participates (Manning & Stage, 2014).
My research paradigm and methods align with my research question to enable me to meet my goals related to theory development. But what do I mean by theory and theory development? Let me break down what this means in my work. Kezar (2006) does an excellent job of explaining the confusion around theory I mentioned previously. She provides a thorough overview of the challenges and benefits of using theory and how it relates to the field of education. She also presents questions researchers should consider to determine how theory fits into their work. After reviewing this work and considering existing theories related to my research, I considered what my own definition of theory would look like based on my understanding of theory. My work follows a combination of the interpretive and participatory paradigms. I seek to explain something in order to better understand it so that I may provide a guide to facilitate change. The phenomenon I study is innovation development in organizations, a phenomenon that includes poorly defined human and organizational processes that are socially constructed and context specific. Thus, my work will likely not yield a universal theory.
The goal of my work is to understand the role of various processes, structures, and characteristics on innovation development in higher education. I believe theory has value and is interpreted differently based on the individual and context. Therefore, I seek to generate theory within my context that may provide new knowledge, expanded from existing theories and based in experience, of how organizations, teams, and individuals engage to sustain innovation. From this theory development, I hope to provide a model for others to consider in their own unique contexts. For theory to emerge from my research, a scholarly approach is required following a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. A deductive review of existing literature enables me to use my prior knowledge to explore alternatives to existing theories to inductively derive meaning through original research. Therefore, my past personal and professional experience is relevant and must be acknowledged in my work. Considering these reflections, I define theory as an interpretation of an observed or experienced phenomenon that has practical value in certain contexts. I must acknowledge that this definition will likely change as my work and context changes.
Research outcomes are only as valid as the underlying foundations that support each step of the work. Defining and aligning research questions, paradigms, and methods is critical to a well-planned study. Articulating the role and purpose of theory in one’s research clarifies how meaning is derived and understood. Kezar (2006) is a source worth exploring if you wish to deepen your own understanding of the role of theory in research in education.
References
Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question? In J. Smart (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Volume XXI (pp. 283-344). Springer.
Manning, K. & Stage, F. (2014). What is your research approach? In F. Stage & K. Manning (eds.), Research in the college context (pp. 19-44). Routledge.
