Content uploaded by Jacob Dankasa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jacob Dankasa on Oct 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
64
JISTaP
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice
http://www.jistap.org
Developing a Theory in Academic Research:
A Review of Experts’ Advice
Jacob Dankasa *
University of North Texas
Denton, USA
E-mail: jdankasa@gmail.com
Open Access
Accepted date: September 9, 2015
Received date: August 5, 2015
*Corresponding Author: Jacob Dankasa
University of North Texas
Denton, USA
E-mail: jdankasa@gmail.com
All JISTaP content is Open Access, meaning it is accessible online
to everyone, without fee and authors’ permission. All JISTaP
content is published and distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (http:/ creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/3.0/). Under this license, authors reserve the
copyright for their content; however, they permit anyone to
unrestrictedly use, distribute, and reproduce the content in any
medium as far as the original authors and source are cited. For
any reuse, redistribution, or reproduction of a work, users must
clarify the license terms under which the work was produced.
ⓒ Jacob Dankasa, 2015
Research Paper
J. of infosci. theory and practice 3(3): 64-74, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2015.3.3.4
ABSTRACT
Despite the number of developed theories, it still remains a dicult task for some established and emerging schol-
ars in various academic elds to clearly articulate new theories from research studies. This paper reviews and col-
lates the views of scholars on what a theory is and how a good theory can be developed. It explains the concept
of a theory, and the dierent components that make up a theory. The paper discusses the dierent processes of
theory development by emphasizing what theory is and what theory is not. This review found that scholars dier
in their denition of a theory, which leads to using terms such as model, paradigm, framework, and theory inter-
changeably. It found the lack of theoretical constructs in a study to be one of the factors which explains why arti-
cles are rejected for publication. This paper may be of benet to established researchers who may be struggling
with theory development, and especially younger academics who are the future of scholarship in various academ-
ic elds, particularly in information science.
Keywords
: eory Development, Information Science, Review, Developing a eory
1. INTRODUCTION
Studies with strong theoretical perspectives are oen
regarded as adding value to any eld of learning. It is
therefore essential for scholars and researchers in var-
ious academic elds to develop strong skills in theory
development. A well-crafted theory supports logical
thoughts and helps to make sense of the reality that re-
65
http://www.jistap.org
Developing a Theory in Academic Research
searchers struggle to present. Scholars of information
science, for example, have developed various theories
over the years (Chatman, 1999; Cole, 2011; Dervin,
1998; Kuhlthau, 1991), and new theories that point
to new directions in the study of information science
have also emerged (Spink & Heinström, 2011; Sin,
2011; Jaeger & Burnett, 2010). Despite the developed
theories within this eld, it still remains a dicult task
for some emerging scholars to clearly articulate new
theories from research studies (Pettigrew & McKech-
nie, 2001). Many researchers and scholars in various
fields may be battling with similar problems because
there is no one way or an agreed upon pattern of de-
veloping a theory. Various scholars provide variations
in their methods of developing a theory (Smith & Hitt,
2005). e lack of a clear road map for theory devel-
opment makes the process “one of the most frustrating
and arduous tasks in which a scholar engages” (Cun-
ningham, 2013, p. 3). e main objective of this paper
is to bring together dierent ideas of scholars of theory
development in order to help researchers nd paths to
follow in their process of developing a theory. In ad-
dition, in a highly competitive academic environment
where publish or perish is the norm, it is essential for
future scholars to be aware of factors that may increase
their chances of getting their work published. The
ability to design a study that contributes to theory is
obviously a major factor.
is paper reviews literature to collate the dierent
views of scholars on what makes a good theory and
how it can be developed. e paper explains the con-
cept of a theory and the different components that
make up a theory. It discusses the dierent processes
of theory development by emphasizing what a theory
is and what a theory is not. A theory needs to benet
the progression of research. erefore, this paper ex-
amines the role of theories in academic research and
their importance to various academic elds, especially
the field of information science. It contributes to the
understanding of the process of theory development
from dierent perspectives. It is hoped that this paper
may be of benet to established researchers who may
be struggling with theory development, and especially
younger academics who are the future of scholarship
in the field of information science and other disci-
plines.
2. METHODOLOGY
Various searches were conducted to look for articles
on theory development. Search terms such as devel-
oping a theory, theory development, how to develop a
theo ry, and theory development in information science
were used to identify studies conducted on this subject
area. Electronic databases such as EBSCOhost, Google
Scholar, and other institutional library databases were
used in the search for materials. e major sources re-
trieved and used for this review were journal articles.
Some books that contributed to the discourse on theo-
ry development were consulted. About 81 sources were
collected but only 38 journal articles and 20 books
were used for this review because of their relevance to
the topic and scope of the paper. However, there was
no limit set for the year of publication of the sources to
be used because the process of theory development is
as old as the research process itself. In addition, wid-
ening the scope of the publication period of sources to
be included may help in gaining insights into diverse
views on the subject and the changes in those views
over time. e major sources included in this review
were drawn from a variety of disciplines. It must also
be noted that this paper is not a review of dierent the-
ories; rather, it is a review of ideas presented by some
scholars and researchers on what a theory is and the
process of developing a theory.
3. CONCEPT AND COMPONENTS OF A
THEORY
Different researchers have presented different defi-
nitions of a theory (Odi, 1982; Silverman, 2006; Vogt,
1993; Babbie, 1992; Schwandt, 1997; Merton, 1957).
According to Corley and Gioia (2011), a theory is a re-
lationship of concepts that shows how and why a phe-
nomenon occurs. It is made up of “constructs linked
together by propositions that have an underlying,
coherent logic and related assumptions” (Davis, Eisen-
hardt, & Bingham, 2007, p. 481). Garver (2008) sug-
gested that theories vary in their specications. Some
theories are termed as knowledge while others are
contrasted with knowledge; some can be tested, others
cannot; some theories are idea-based while others are
application-based. While some theories help to further
66
JISTaP Vol.3 No.3, 64-74
understanding, others can be barriers to understand-
ing, Garver concluded. For Buckland (1991), a strong
theory is based on perception; whatever theory match-
es one’s perception becomes a good theory. Davis et
al. (2007, p. 481) brought together the views of some
scholars of theory development and enumerated four
elements of a theory. ese are
• constructs
• propositions that link those constructs together
• logical arguments that explain the underlying the-
oretical rationale for the propositions, and
• assumptions that dene the scope of the theory.
In the same vein, Wacker (2004) identified four
properties that should characterize a good theory: “for-
mal conceptual denitions, theory domain, explained
relationships, and predictions” (p. 631). Wacker de-
fines a theory as a link that creates relationships of
concepts. Various researchers dene a theory based on
their perception of what a theory does. According to
Sutton and Staw (1995), the lack of a unied denition
among scholars of what a theory is has oen made it
dicult to develop a strong theory. is is evident in
many researchers’ use of terms such as model, para-
digm, framework, and theory interchangeably to denote
the same thing. e distinction between a paradigm, a
model, a framework, and a theory should be made so
that readers can clearly understand the distinctions.
In order to develop a good theory, there are some
identiable features that must be considered in a study.
Some of these features could be drawn from Wacker
(2004) who proposed that a theory should be unique,
in the sense that it should be clearly distinguished
from other theories; it should be conservative by
standing the test of time, which means it should only
be replaced by a new superior theory. A good theory
should be worthy of being generalized, applicable to
other disciplines, and capable of producing hypotheses
and generating models. An example of such a theory
is the diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1995),
which led to developing more superior theories that
shaped other theories. Diusion of innovation theory
has also been applied in a variety of disciplines (Du-
rante, 2011; Osareh & Wilson, 1997; Patterson, Shaw,
& Masys, 1997).
Schroeder (2008) is in agreement with Wacker
(2004) that a good theory should be tested, conrmed,
refined, or even refuted. Glaser and Strauss (1967),
however, have a rather stronger position on the elastic
limits of a theory. They contend that a theory that is
deeply rooted in data cannot be easily refuted or un-
done by another theory. Such theories stand the test
of time regardless of whatever modications or refor-
mulations they undergo. Glaser and Strauss pointed to
grounded theory, in contrast to theories that are based
on ungrounded assumption which they referred to as
products of logical deduction. ey believe such theo-
ries are mostly altered by subsequent logic that count-
ers their assumptions. Grounded theory has been used
in many studies to develop new theories (e.g., Goodall,
Newman, & Ward, 2014; Urquhart & Fernández, 2013;
Wolfswinkel, Furtmueller, & Wilderom, 2013).
From the aforementioned assertions, Glaser and
Straus seem to be more concerned with building the-
ory using qualitative data rather than quantitative.
However, many studies have applied quantitative data
to build theories and such studies may not be simply
dismissed as based on ungrounded assumptions as
Glaser and Straus seem to suggest. Both qualitative
and quantitative data can lead to good theories if pro-
cesses of eective theory development are followed.
4. PROCESSES OF THEORY DEVELOPMENT
In developing a theory various considerations have
to be made. e discussion below presents the views of
researchers and scholars on the processes of develop-
ing a good theory.
4.1. Demonstration of Relationship among
Variables
Sutton and Staw (1995) believe a strong theory
should be simple and interconnected; it should be able
to predict, to explain, and to delight. In other words,
theories begin with insights that have to be developed
into concepts and relationships. These concepts and
relationships are then connected and integrated into a
whole. Insight alone, without conceptual connections,
cannot make a theory (Rindova, 2011). Therefore,
developing a theory is more than merely drawing a list
of variables; the relationship between or among the
variables should be clearly demonstrated (Whetten,
1989). is means the author needs to have the read-
67
http://www.jistap.org
Developing a Theory in Academic Research
ers in mind when constructing a theory. According
to DiMaggio (1995), for a theory to be considered
relevant, the author has to congure propositions that
readers can comprehend. Propositions are the state-
ments that help to explain the relationships between
the dierent constructs of a study. rough these con-
structs hypotheses are drawn. Bacharach (1989) made
the distinction between propositions and hypotheses
which are oentimes mistaken to be synonymous. Ac-
cording to Bacharach, “propositions state the relations
among constructs, and on the more concrete level,
hypotheses (derived from the propositions) specify the
relations among variables” (p. 500). erefore, it is very
essential that an author should explain these proposi-
tions so that any theory developed can be understood
based on the clear statements of its propositions.
Since a theory is a set of concepts, denitions, and
propositions used to explain events and situations,
Michie and Prestwich (2010) believe that a good theo-
ry should draw a systematic relationship. Such a rela-
tionship will advance the understanding of the situa-
tions and events it claims to explain. is can be done
through the development of paradigms. A paradigm
is something which makes sense of a particular area of
learning. rough a paradigm, areas of studies and the
process of carrying out the studies are determined. A
paradigm serves as a guide to researchers in their var-
ious elds of study (Olsen, Lodwick, & Dunlap, 1992).
Olsen et al. (1992) identied two types of paradigms
with which theories can be developed: scientic para-
digms and social paradigms. The scientific paradigm
is the frame of thoughts that guide researchers with
scientic perspectives. is paradigm is mostly applied
by natural scientists in their intellectual activities. So-
cial paradigms, on the other hand, are used to interpret
how people make sense of their social lives in their
communities or environments. is type of paradigm
guides scholarship mostly in the social sciences and
humanities. It must be noted that paradigm is a con-
cept that has been used and explained differently by
various scholars (Guba, 1990; Kuhn, 1970). ere is no
one way of dening a paradigm. However, a paradigm,
as used here in relation to a theory, is the framework
by which a theory can be developed.
Whetten (1989) mentioned four essential elements
that are needed to make a theory complete. ese ele-
ments are the what, when, how, and why of the theory.
e what looks at the judgments made in including the
right factors to make up the theory. Two criteria can be
used to determine the what of the theory. e rst is
the comprehensiveness of the theory: Does it contain
all the necessary factors such as variables, concepts,
or constructs? The second is parsimony: Are there
irrelevant factors that add nothing new to the theory?
If such factors exist, they must be removed. e when
describes the factors that are added at the time of cre-
ating the theory. According to Whetten, “when authors
begin to map out the conceptual landscape of a topic
they should err in favor of including too many factors,
recognizing that over time their ideas will be rened.
It is generally easier to delete unnecessary or invalid
elements than it is to justify addition” (p. 490). This
means adding more factors such as constructs, vari-
ables, or concepts at the beginning of the research pro-
cess and allowing for the possibility that they may be
deleted later is better than adding fewer factors at the
beginning, only to realize later that more are needed.
Making justications for such additions at a later stage
may prove difficult. The how of the theory seeks to
determine how the dierent factors are related. is is
sometimes presented in a form of a diagram or by link-
ing terms or variables using arrows. is is also known
as a model. Graphical representation of thoughts can
help to bring clarity to the meaning of concepts. e
why of the theory will bring out an explanation of the
purpose for which the factors were chosen. The big
question to be asked here is: Why should the theory be
accepted or be seen as useful by those in the field who
look at it? According to Whetten (1989), the logic be-
hind the creation of the theory is more signicant than
the data of the theory. e question that anyone devel-
oping a theory should ask is: Do my propositions make
sense in this eld of studies? Readers should be able to
assess the theory based on the sense it makes, not on
the data it presents, Whetten concluded.
Whetten’s (1989) emphasis on the logic behind the
creation of a theory rather than the data of the theory
is a sharp deviation from the emphasis of the ground-
ed theory of Glaser and Strauss (1967), which lets the
data guide the development of the theory. These are
two opposing views that present some challenges to
researchers in their choice of research method. How-
ever, the method to be used depends on one’s research
orientation.
68
JISTaP Vol.3 No.3, 64-74
In presenting the four essential elements of a theory,
Whetten describes variables, constructs, and con-
cepts as factors of a theory but did not explain their
meaning. It is unclear whether Whetten assumes that
the factors he mentioned all meant the same thing in
relation to theory. On the contrary, Bacharach (1989)
advised that theorists should avoid using terms such
as variables and constructs synonymously. According
to Bacharach, “a construct may be viewed as a broad
mental configuration of a given phenomenon, while
a variable may be viewed as an operational congura-
tion derived from a construct” (p. 500).
4.2. Clear Denition of Concepts
Kuhn (1959) proposed that, in order to understand
and create a theory, the theorist must bring together
previous knowledge and rearrange it. According to
Kuhn, “the scientist must usually rearrange the intel-
lectual and manipulative equipment he has previously
relied upon, discarding some elements of his prior
belief and practice while nding new signicances in
and new relationships between many others” (p. 22).
is means in the process of developing a theory, some
elements of the previous knowledge may be discard-
ed, while newly found concepts are developed into
signicant relationships. Kuhn believes that new ideas
come with some reordering of already known ideas.
erefore, for a paper to exhibit strong theory, it has to
begin with a few conceptual statements that are built
in a logical manner.
For a theory to be signicantly developed using sta-
tistical data, for instance, concepts must be measured
appropriately. In the process of theory development,
attention must be given to the denition and progres-
sion of concepts (Wacker, 2004). Conceptual defini-
tions must be given using the appropriate vocabularies
which are representative of the field of inquiry. For
example, in developing a user-centered theory in the
eld of information science, the denition of a user is
necessary to give the perspective of the unique mean-
ing of the word in the eld. According to Wacker (p.
630), a good theory should dene concepts (who and
what a conceptual definition is), domain (the when
and where the conceptual definitions apply), causal
relationships (how and why the conceptual denitions
are related to measurements), and lastly, make predic-
tions (what should, could, and would happen when
formal conceptual definitions are used for measure-
ment). is suggests that for a theory to be described
as a good theory the flow of its progression must be
consistent and reasonable, applying the rules of deduc-
tion or induction.
4.3. The Constituents of a Theory
Mills (1959) believes that developing a theory is an
intellectual cra that involves the use of one’s life ex-
perience. is means that the theorist enters into the
intellectual work by personally getting involved in the
product that is worked on. Throughout the process,
the theorist will continue to examine and interpret the
work by applying the life experience and knowledge
acquired. is is to enable the researcher to apply all
the necessary elements that constitute a theory. In or-
der to have the elements needed in a theory, Mills pre-
sented the following suggestions to theory developers:
1. Make formal theory and build models as well as
you can.
2. All facts and details, together with their relation-
ship, should be well examined.
3. All works should be related closely and continu-
ously to historical reality.
4. Make it your task to dene the reality without as-
suming someone else will do it for you.
5. Formulate the problems in their own terms and
try to provide solutions to the problems. (p. 224).
In order to highlight the constituents of a theory,
Sutton and Staw (1995) outlined ve elements of a re-
search paper that are oen mistakenly taken as theory
while in the actual sense they are not. According to
these authors: 1) references are not theory; 2) data are
not theory; 3) lists of variables or constructs are not
theory; 4) diagrams are not theory; 5) hypotheses or
predictions are not theory. They argued that making
references to a list of theories in an article is not in it-
self a theory because there is no explanation of the log-
ical link between these references. According to Sutton
and Staw (1995), when theoretical works are cited in
an article or in a study, such theories should be shown
to have a relationship to the new framework. Mere
data presented in a study cannot be termed as theory
in themselves. e data should be able to explain cer-
tain causal relationships in order to be called a theory.
The authors believe that it is not enough to present
69
http://www.jistap.org
Developing a Theory in Academic Research
data in a study; researchers also have to show what the
data represent and explain their meaning.
Sutton and Staw (1995) insisted that when research-
ers present variables and constructs in a study, they
must know that these are not theories. For constructs
or variables to become theory, researchers have to
show how they emerged and must explain their con-
nections. Many theories are demonstrated through
diagrams or models, but diagrams by themselves are
not theories. The causal connections the diagrams
represent must be explained and the relationships
they established must be highlighted. Sutton and Staw
concluded that mere predictions or hypotheses are not
theories because a hypothesis only explains the what
rather than the why. ese authors believe explaining
the why is the basis of a theory.
The views of Sutton and Staw above spur a debate
among scholars on what constitutes a theory. Weick
(1995) responded to Sutton and Staw on their asser-
tions of what theory is not. According to Weick, the
points raised by Sutton and Staw could make sense
if one alludes to them as theory due to “laziness and
incompetence” (Weick, p. 385). Weick believes that, in
the early stages of theory development, the points that
Sutton and Staw described as not theories are actual-
ly very important in enhancing the process. On this
note, Weick accused Sutton and Staw of getting “lost in
their concern with theory as a product rather than as
a process” (p. 385). Weick contended that it is dicult
to determine what a theory is by merely examining the
product. e context of the product itself, which is the
process of the theory creation, needs to be examined as
well. In Weick’s view, rather than Sutton and Staw tag-
ging their ve proposed assertions as not theory at all,
they should instead be seen as the road to creating a
theory. Weick asserts that developing a theory involves
activities such as “abstracting, generalizing, relating,
selecting, explaining, synthesizing, and idealizing” (p.
389).
The debate between Weick (1995) and Sutton and
Staw (1995) brought out interesting points that express
the need for researchers to pay attention to theory
as both a product and a process. erefore, there is a
need to articulate clearly the level or the composition
of the sample a researcher uses to develop a theory in
a study in order to further the understanding of the
applicability of the theory.
4.4. Level of a Theory
In building a theory, the levels at which the gener-
alization is made need to be described clearly. Klein,
Dansereau and Hall (1994) stated that, in trying to
show the level of a theory, members of a group under
study need to be either homogeneous, independent, or
heterogeneous. is should be part of the prediction of
the construct of the theory. If a group is chosen as the
level of study for developing a theory, the prediction
to be made should be based on the composition of the
group. If there is similarity in the composition of the
group, all members can be characterized together. e
important factor here is the group as a variable, and
not the individual members of the group. On the other
hand, if the specification of the level of the theory is
based on the individual, then the prediction should be
made looking at the individual as independent of the
inuence of other group members. On a similar note,
Kalnins (2007) also stressed the importance of the se-
lection process in theory development. He argued that
sample selection, when carried out appropriately, is
capable of explaining the type of empirical relationship
that takes place during the process of theory develop-
ment. Considering selection issues rst will help reveal
data that are either consistent or on par with the actual
cause of relationship observed during the research
process.
Emphasizing the importance of sample determina-
tion in the process of theory development, Klein et al.
(1994) suggested that, in order to add precision to the
theory and remove confusion in the process of data
collection and analysis, eorts should be made to spec-
ify correctly the levels of the theory. ey proered the
following suggestions:
1. eory building is enhanced by explicit specica-
tion and explication of the level of a theory and its
attendant assumptions of homogeneity, indepen-
dence, or heterogeneity. Specificity increases the
clarity of theories.
2. eory building may be enhanced by specication
and discussion of the sources of the predicted ho-
mogeneity, independence, or heterogeneity of the
constructs. Attention to these issues increases the
depth and comprehensiveness of theories.
3. eory building may be enhanced by explicit con-
sideration of alternative assumptions of variability,
which increases the creativity of theories. (p. 205).
70
JISTaP Vol.3 No.3, 64-74
In the eld of information science, Pettigrew, Fidel,
and Bruce (2001) hold that frameworks in research can
be developed through cognitive, social, or multifaceted
approaches. Various researchers have developed theo-
ries, especially in the area of information seeking be-
havior research, using these approaches. e cognitive
viewpoint concentrates on the individual as the subject
of research by looking at the attributes of that indi-
vidual in order to understand his/her information be-
havior. By doing this, a framework is formed based on
the emotional and cognitive elements that motivate an
individual to behave in a certain way when seeking or
using information. e social approach for creating a
framework centers on the context in which a behavior
is observed. Here, the social context is interpreted in
order to establish meaning. Examples of such frame-
works are those developed by Chatman (1999; 2000) in
her formulation of the theories of information poverty,
life in the round, and normative behavior. Scholars use
the social approach to look at the dynamics of how
humans interact among themselves to share and use
information.
Due to scholars’ dissatisfaction with using either the
cognitive or social approach to develop a framework,
a multifaceted approach was developed to integrate all
approaches in order to better explain human informa-
tion behavior. A notable importance of the multifacet-
ed approach is that it allows a researcher to develop a
theory from the combined theories of others (Pettigrew
et al., 2001). The work of Pettigrew et al. is very im-
portant in the understanding of how to develop theory
in information science research; however, it also uses
the terms frameworks, models, and theory interchange-
ably. This tends to blur the clarity of the meaning of
these concepts and how they dier.
5. THE ROLE OF THEORY IN ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
Producing a paper that makes a contribution to
theory depends on the ability of scholars to develop
original ideas that bring something insightful into
scholarship, and which can be applied to bring about
fresh thinking (Corley & Gioia, 2011). Any work that
is worthy of publication should have some theoretical
perspective. Sharma (2011) points out that reviewers of
journal articles do not only look at a study’s methodol-
ogy but also what contribution the work makes to the
eld of study. According to Corley and Gioia (2011),
assessment of publications in some top journals such
as Academic Management Review (AMR) shows that
“the idea of contribution rests largely on the ability to
provide original insight into a phenomenon by advanc-
ing knowledge in a way that is deemed to have utility
or usefulness for some purpose” (p. 15). Corley and
Gioia believe that originality and utility are two major
criteria for theoretical contributions: “Originality can
be categorized as either (1) advancing understanding
incrementally or (2) advancing understanding in a way
that provides some form of revelation, whereas the
utility dimension parses into (1) practically useful and
(2) scientically useful” (p. 16). When a research paper
is perceived to make an insufficient contribution to
theory, does not appear to ll any gap in the literature,
or the connection between the theory that is proposed
and the data presented is not properly made, its suit-
ability for publication could be aected (Huy, 2012).
DiMaggio (1995) gives a summary of what differ-
ent schools of thought consider a good theory in a
research paper. ese are: 1) the theory should make
one or more generalizations that help in describing
our world; 2) the theory should have elements of en-
lightenment that not only generalize but also create
insights into new domains; 3) the theory should be
able to give a narrative that is plausible, and should
present accounts of actions that are used to make pre-
dictions; 4) good theory should be able to cause reality
to be viewed in a new way (in what DiMaggio refers to
as a process of de-familiarization). is process occurs
when an individual is able to see his/her world in a
new light that is signicantly dierent from his or her
preconceived notions because a theory has suggest-
ed an alternative mode of thinking. In other words,
theory should bring clarity, not distortion. erefore,
Higgins (2004) advised that a theory in development
should be cared for like a parent cares for a child. It
should not be abandoned at the developmental stage;
time should be devoted to its growth through further
research.
In their view, Glaser and Strauss (1967) feel that a
theory in academic research should help in predicting
and giving explanations of behavior in order to make
situations clearer and understandable. Similarly, Huy
71
http://www.jistap.org
Developing a Theory in Academic Research
(2012) felt that reviewers often view research that
shows or offers vivid explanation of how data were
collected and analyzed, and how the data are linked to
concepts in the theory, as a sign of the rigorous appli-
cation of a good method of data collection and analy-
sis.
Glaser and Strauss (1967), like DiMaggio (1995),
also advised that theory should serve as a guide for the
selection of the approach to use in academic research.
To achieve this, a good theory should be clear in its
categories or propositions and hypotheses so that they
can be verifiable in replicated research. Glaser and
Straus added that theory developers must not try to
force categories where there are none. Instead, catego-
ries should come naturally and be identied in the data
used for the study. When created, the theory should
give meaningful explanation to whatever behavior is
studied. Thus, a good theory should not only be un-
derstood by the professionals in the eld of study, but
also by nonprofessionals, especially if it is a theory that
is based on an observed behavior.
For a theory to make a signicant contribution to a
eld, Whetten (1989) insisted that the study in which
the theory is developed should be able to demonstrate
what is new about the theory, what makes the theory
relevant, and the plausibility of the evidence and logic.
Researchers aiming to develop a theory from a study
should ask: Is such a study well done, well written,
thorough, and complete in thought and composition?
Are the ideas presented new? Do they add to existing
knowledge, making it so compelling as to be written at
the chosen time? ese questions are very important
factors in the review process for publications. A lack-
ing in these factors may militate against acceptance of
papers for publication because they may be regarded
as lacking in theoretical constructs.
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR EMERGING
SCHOLARS
The inconsistencies concerning what constitutes a
theory have shown themselves in the back-and-forth
arguments among scholars. This further confirms
the complicated nature of theory development. ese
complications are also evident in the eld of informa-
tion science, where even the denition of information
science has been a subject of debate. Several informa-
tion scientists (Bates, 1999; Borko, 1968; Buckland,
2012; Saracevic, 1999) present dierent denitions of
information science. Such variations in meaning may
translate into difficulties in conceptualizing what a
theory should be in the eld. ere are scholars who
believe that the eld of information science is lacking
in good theories (Hjørland, 1998; Chatman, 1992).
Consequently, Aspray (2011) acknowledged the am-
biguity that comes with the attempt to establish what
denes information science. He is of the opinion that,
in dening or explaining information science, a single
event is not sufficient for use as a perfect definition,
since what constitutes information science changes
over time. These changes pose some challenges to
emerging scholars in the eld. ey must be conscious
of the fact that the future of the discipline lies in the
development of theories that explain realities in a new
wa y.
Notwithstanding the lack of agreement about what
constitutes a good theory, the lack of agreement over
how to develop a strong theory shows there is a need
for rigor in the process of developing a theory. The
ndings of this review show that one reason why stud-
ies are not published is their lack of theoretical con-
structs. ere are researchers who try to publish stud-
ies that they perceive to have theoretical perspectives,
only to nd their work rejected. Sutton and Staw (1995)
believe that some papers are rejected partly due to var-
ious misconceptions as to what constitutes a theory.
e disagreement between Weick (1995) and Sutton
and Staw (1995) about what a theory is and what it is
not further shows how complicated it is to determine
a good theory from a research paper. Disagreements
such as these demonstrate a need for researchers and
scholars to be consistent in dening what constitutes
the acceptable denition of a theory, and what makes a
good theory. is idea was also corroborated by Petti-
grew and McKechnie (2001), who found discrepancies
in the way researchers describe what makes a good
theory. These discrepancies may likely influence the
decisions of reviewers, who may be divided on their
perception of what constitutes a good theory in a re-
search paper. erefore, emerging scholars have to be
cognizant of these divisions and aim toward develop-
ing theories based on the many informative processes
suggested by expert researchers. ey also need to be
72
JISTaP Vol.3 No.3, 64-74
familiar with these disagreements because sometimes
disagreements and/or varying viewpoints drive a eld.
Disagreements and varying viewpoints are important
aspects of science and discovery.
is paper does not claim to review all work that has
been done on theory development. It only concentrates
on selected materials, especially journal articles. The
aim is to point to the need of paying more attention
to construction of good theories among established
and emerging researchers, particularly in the field of
information science, and to describe different views
of experts on what constitutes a good theory. There
are many books written on theory development (e.g.,
Dubin, 1978; Gibbs, 1972) which this review does not
reect. Further research may concentrate on reviewing
the published books on the subject of theory develop-
ment.
7. CONCLUSION
is paper discusses the concept and components of
a theory, the process of developing a theory, the role of
theories in academic research, and the implications to
emerging scholars. It nds that in developing a theory,
relationships among variables need to be demonstrat-
ed, concepts clearly dened, and elements of a theory
explained. It also stresses the need to give more atten-
tion to the levels of a theory determined by the sample
and population of the study.
The paper shows that scholars differ in their defi-
nition of a theory, which has led them to use terms
such as model, paradigm, framework, and theory in-
terchangeably. e elasticity of a theory has also been
a subject of debate. Some scholars believe that good
theories should be internally consistent but open to
refutation. Others are of the opinion that a good theo-
ry, one that is worth its name, cannot be easily refuted
or undone by another theory. However, scholars and
researchers agree that a strong theory should stand the
test of time.
REFERENCES
Aspray, W. (2011). The history of information science
and other traditional information domains: Models
for future research. Libraries & the Cultural Record,
46(2), 230-248. doi: 10.5555/lcr.2011.46.2.230
Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some
criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 496-515.
Bates, M. J. (1999). e invisible substrate of informa-
tion science. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050.
Borko, H. (1968). Information science: What is it?
American Documentation, 19(1), 3-5. doi: 10.1002/
asi.5090190103
Buckland, M. (1991). Information and information sys-
tems. Westport, CN: Greenwood.
Buckland, M. (2012). What kind of science can infor-
mation science be? Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 1-7.
doi: 10.1002/asi.21656
Chatman, E. A. (1992). e information world of retired
women. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Chatman, E. A. (1999). A theory of life in the round.
Journal of the American Society of Information Sci-
ence, 50(3), 207-217.
Chatman, E. A. (2000). Framing social life in theory and
research. e New Review of Information Behaviour
Research, 1, 3-17.
Cole, C. (2011). A theory of information need for in-
formation retrieval that connects information to
knowledge. Journal of the American Society for In-
formation Science and Technology, 62(7), 1216-1231.
doi: 10.1002/asi.21541
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory
about theory building: What constitutes a theoreti-
cal contribution? Academy of Management Review,
36(1), 12-32.
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007).
Developing theory through simulation methods.
Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480-499.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351453
Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice:
an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking
and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2),
36-46.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “what theory is
n o t .” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 391-
397.
73
http://www.jistap.org
Developing a Theory in Academic Research
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (revised ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Durante, C. (2011). Active citizenship in Italian cohous-
ing: A preliminary reflection. Everyday Life in the
Segmented City, 11, 307-333.
Garver, N. (2008). What theory is. Journal of Folklore
Research, 45(1), 63-70.
Gibbs, J. P. (1972). Sociological theory construction. IL:
Dryden Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). e discovery of ground-
ed theory: Strategies for qualitative inquiry. Chicago:
Aldine.
Goodall, K., Newman, L., & Ward, P. (2014). Improving
access to health information for older migrants by
using grounded theory and social network analysis
to understand their information behaviour and
digital technology use. European Journal of Cancer
Care, 23(6), 728-738. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12241
Guba, E. G. (1990). e paradigm dialog. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Higgins, E. T. (2004). Making a theory useful: Lessons
handed down. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8(2), 138-145. doi: 10.1207/s15327957p-
spr0802_7
Hjørland, B. (1998). Theory and metatheory of infor-
mation science: A new interpretation. Journal of
Documentation, 54(5), 606–621.
Huy, Q. N. (2012). Improving the odds of publishing
inductive qualitative research in premier academ-
ic journals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
48(2), 282-287. doi: 10.1177/0021886312438864
Jaeger, P. T., & Burnett, G. (2010). Information worlds:
Social context, technology, and information behavior
in the age of the Internet. New York: Routledge.
Kalnins, A. (2007). Sample selection and theory devel-
opment: Implications of firms’ varying abilities to
appropriately select new ventures. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 32(4), 1246-1264. doi: 10.5465/
AMR.2007.26586802
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels
issues in theory development, data collection, and
analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2),
195-229.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Infor-
mation seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal
of the American Society of Information Science,
42(5), 361-371.
Kuhn, T. (1959). e essential tension: Tradition and in-
novation in scientic research. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.),
e third University of Utah research conference on
the identication of scientic talent. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). e structure of scientic revolutions
(revised ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure.
New York: Free Press.
Michie, S., & Prestwich, A. (2010). Are interventions
theory-based? Development of a theory coding
scheme. Health Psychology, 29(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1037/
a0016939
Mills, C. W. (1959). On intellectual crasmanship [Ap-
pendix]. In The sociological imagination (pp. 195-
226). London: Oxford University Press.
Odi, A. (1982). Creative research and theory building in
library and information sciences. College and Re-
search Libraries, 43(4), 312-19.
Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992).
Viewing the world ecologically. CO: Westview Press
Boulder.
Osareh, F., & Wilson, C. S. (1997). ird World Coun-
tries (TWC) research publications by disciplines: A
country-by-country citation analysis. Scientomet-
rics, 39(3), 253-266.
Patterson, T. L, Shaw W. S, & Masys, D. R. (1997) Im-
proving health through computer self-help pro-
grams: Theory and practice. In P. F. Brennan, S.
F. Schneider, & E. Tornquist (Eds.), Information
networks for community health (pp. 219-246). New
York: Springer.
Pettigrew, K. E., & McKechnie, L. E. (2001). e use of
theory in information science research. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 52(1), 62-73.
Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Concep-
tual frameworks in information behavior. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology,
35(43-78).
Rindova, V. (2011). Moving from ideas to a theoretical
contribution: Comments on the process of devel-
oping theory in organizational research. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 47(2), 19-21. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03221.x
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation theory.
74
JISTaP Vol.3 No.3, 64-74
New York: Free Press.
Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 50(12),
1051-1063.
Schroeder, R. G. (2008). Introduction to the special
issue on theory development in operations man-
agement. Production and Operations Management,
17(3), 354-356.
Schwandt, T.A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary
of terms. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Sharma, R. (2011). Research methods and the relevance
of the IS discipline: a critical analysis of the role of
methodological pluralism. Journal of Information
Technology, 26(4), 306-312. doi: 10.1057/jit.2011.27
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Meth-
ods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Thou-
sand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.
Sin, S. J. (2011). Towards Agency–Structure integration:
A person-in-environment (PIE) framework for
modelling individual-level information behaviours
and outcomes. In A. Spink and J. Heinström (Eds.),
New directions in information behaviour (pp. 181-
209). UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Spink, A., & Heinström, J. (Eds.). (2011). New directions
in information behaviour. UK: Emerald Group Pub-
lishing.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W. (2013). Using ground-
ed theory method in information systems: The
researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal
of Information Technology, 28(3), 224-236. doi:
10.1057/jit.2012.34
Vogt, W. P. (1993). Dictionary of statistics and method-
ology: A non-technical guide for the social sciences.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications
Wacker, J. G. (2004). A theory of formal conceptual de-
nitions: Developing theory-building measurement
instruments. Journal of Operations Management,
22(6), 629-650. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.002
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390.
doi: 10.2307/2393789
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical
contribution? Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 490-495. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1989.4308371
Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P.
(2013). Using grounded theory as a method for
rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal
of Information Systems, 22(1), 45-55. doi: 10.1057/
ejis.2011.51
