Abstract
Our field needs research simultaneously driven by theory and context that is both rigorous and relevant. This commentary has sought to propose a viable road map to explore the interplay between context and concept toward theory building in an applied area of research such as ours. This commentary discusses a three-step approach of conceptualizing the context, contextualizing the concept, and cross-fertilizing the context and concept to systematically explore the interaction between context and concept in the interest of theory building. Specific steps at each stage of the process are also discussed.
In my years of mentoring graduate students in their hospitality-related research, I have often encountered the same situation. The student gets excited by a theoretical framework presented in a piece of research published in another discipline. The student then decides to test the said theoretical framework in a hospitality context. My conversation with such a student typically goes like this:
What’s the expected theoretical contribution of your proposed research?
This conceptual framework has never been tested in a hotel (or restaurant, casino, cruise, etc.) context.
Do you expect your chosen framework to behave differently in a hotel (or restaurant, casino, cruise, etc.) context?
Not really.
So, your proposal is essentially to provide more empirical evidence to validate the applicability of the framework in a hospitality context?
But it has never been tested in a hospitality context. Isn’t that a theoretical contribution in and of itself?
Is there any reason to believe it doesn’t work in a hospitality context?
Then how do I go about developing theories in a hospitality and tourism context?
There appears to be underlying trepidation or doubt whether theories or theoretical frameworks can be developed in an applied field of research such as hospitality and tourism management. Yet, as our field matures as a research discipline, as an executive editor of this journal, I have witnessed firsthand how many manuscripts are rejected due to their marginal theoretical contributions. For dissertation research, novelty and originality are of particular importance.
I have been wanting to write something to codify my conversations with graduate students over the years on this topic in the hope of guiding them in their quest for theory building. Herein, I propose that the connection between context and concept in an applied area of research such as hospitality and tourism creates unique opportunities for theorizing. In the sections below, I explain in more detail the process of building such connections while intentionally exploring the tension between context and concept in three steps: (1) conceptualize the context, (2) contextualize the concept, and (3) explore the tension between the context and the concept toward theoretical novelty.
Conceptualizing the Context
I have often encountered aspiring doctoral students in our research meetings sharing their excitement over a research project: “I want to study [the latest hospitality trend]!” While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I often ask, “Okay, great! What about [the latest hospitality trend] do you want to study?” In saying as such, I am redirecting the student to think about a theoretical question, not a context. Let us say the student wishes to study Airbnb. At this stage, Airbnb is a research context, not a research question. Therefore, the student needs to decide precisely what they are going to study (a research question) regarding Airbnb (a research context). I then stress that researchers are not management consultants who are only expected to come up with solutions to practical problems a company is facing by analyzing a particular context. Instead, they are expected to deal with a research problem that is anchored in the literature around the very topic they now find theoretically intriguing.
That said, in an applied area of research, theorizing usually begins with the study context. I proceed to ask the student, “What about Airbnb do you find so intriguing? How is it different from the conventional hotel industry?” This is an easy starting point for theoretical inquiry. Unpacking the context, so to speak, in this way, entails thinking about a particular phenomenon, identifying things that appear different from other contexts, and defining them at a more abstract (i.e., theoretical) level. I use the research I published with my coauthors in the Journal of Service Research (Lin et al., 2019), which is deeply embedded in a hospitality context (e.g., Airbnb), to illustrate the process of theorizing a context. The publication is considered a seminal work in peer engagement behavior, a testament that scholarship in hospitality can be foundational and serve as a catalyst for a new research stream.
Step 1: What Is So Unique About the Context?
With this question, we embarked on a journey of theorizing. Starting the journey was not difficult. Based on personal observations, anecdotes, readings from the popular press (not necessarily research journals), and surveying of academic journals, we came up with a list of reasons why Airbnb as a context is different from a conventional hotel industry:
In a conventional hotel setting, there are two parties to the deal: guests and a hotel. In an Airbnb setting, there are at least three parties to the deal: guests, hosts, and Airbnb. So how does it change the nature of the transaction?
In a conventional hotel setting, the relationship between a hotel and its employees is organizational. In an Airbnb setting, the relationship between hosts and Airbnb is murkier. So how do we define this relationship in an Airbnb context and what are the implications?
In a conventional hotel setting, guests review hotels, but hotels do not review guests. In an Airbnb setting, reviews happen both ways. How does this affect guest behaviors?
The list went on in this manner. Gradually it built our confidence that there was indeed something intriguing happening here worth probing further. Thus, our work began.
Step 2: What Does the Existing Literature Suggest?
Next, we consulted the literature on business-to-consumer (conventional hotel industry) and peer-to-peer (P2P; Airbnb) contexts and set out to conceptualize the context. Ultimately, we identified the following properties (attributes) and foregrounded them in the final published results (Lin et al., 2019) to define the P2P context as one that involves (1) multiple players, (2) individual-to-individual transactions, and (3) multilayered dyadic relationships. With the illustration, I intend to emphasize that the starting point is not difficult but is necessary and that it requires a commitment to theorizing, consultation of the existing literature, and abstraction of the phenomenon (e.g., Airbnb) to a concept (e.g., P2P business).
Step 3: How Does the Uniqueness of the Context Make the Research Question Particularly Interesting?
Once the unique attributes of a context are identified, the next step is what I call conceptualizing the context through problematizing (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997). Problematizing the situation to craft a research question or angle entails the interplay between the existing literature and the current study (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997). Through the process of problematization, researchers attempt to show how the extant literature is incomplete, inadequate, or incommensurate (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997) when the uniqueness of the context challenges certain assumptions on which previous findings are based. By doing so, researchers establish a compelling case as to how the uniqueness of the context can bear on interesting, novel, and new understandings of the topic in question.
Let us use an example to illustrate this point. A graduate student wanted to study work–life balance in a bed and breakfast (B&B) context. I asked her to think about what it was about B&B that fascinated her and why she thought that work–life balance in B&B would manifest differently in comparison with other forms of accommodation. I was impressed by what she came back with: (1) there is no barrier between workplace and home in a B&B setting, (2) there is no distinction between being on and off the clock in a B&B setting, and (3) there is no separation between colleagues and family members in a B&B setting. As such, we decided to use the unique feature of “borderlessness” inherent to the B&B setting to explore work–life balance issues. Specifically, how border characteristics (tangibility and strength of the borders between innkeepers’ work and personal-life domains) affect the way in which innkeepers integrate and balance work and life. We also introduced entrepreneurial motivations as a contextual variable to examine the relationship between border characteristics and work–life balance, as B&B innkeeping is both a form of employment and a way of life. The outcome of this research was reported in a journal publication (Li et al., 2013).
There is usually a “uniqueness value” (Mone & McKinley, 1993) placed on research that makes novel contributions to a discipline. By exploring the uniqueness of the context and how it will bear on the topic being investigated is a fruitful way to construct new contributions to a body of existing literature in an applied area of research such as ours. However, it is important to note the following:
The setting or the context itself is not a research question: “I want to study bed and breakfasts” is not a research question.
What about the setting you want to study is the research question. This research question is driven by the unique attributes of the setting that are intriguing and likely to challenge some assumptions associated with the conventional wisdom derived from other settings.
Develop a theoretical research question by problematizing the setting.
The research question must be a theoretical question that is embedded in a research stream and body of literature.
Contextualizing the Concept
Step 1: Evaluate the Mutual Alignment Between Context and Theory
Once a theoretical research question has been identified, it is important to delineate a conceptual framework as a theoretical foundation for the proposed study and use the framework as an anchor to guide the development of the study. While concepts and theories mean different things, for this commentary, I use the two terms interchangeably to denote the theoretical framework you may be using to anchor and guide your research. In this step, the theoretical alignment of the chosen concept with the context and its applicability to the domains of the context are critical factors. According to Calvard (2016), contextualizing the concept entails the interplay of sense making, context, and concept via critical and flexible use of appropriate theories and interpretive frames.
Using the work–life balance study I mentioned earlier as an example, among the major theoretical frameworks around work–life balance, work–life border theory (Clark, 2000) makes the most sense to be used as a theoretical anchor to explore work–life interfaces in a B&B innkeeping context. This framework proposes three forms of borders between work and life domains: physical, temporal, and psychological borders (Cowan & Hoffman, 2007). The distinction of this study is that, unlike many applied studies, it was not concerned with testing work–life border theory in a B&B setting. Rather, it used work–life border theory to develop a theoretical framework to study work–life balance in a B&B setting.
Step 2: Contextualizing the Theory Through “Constant Comparison”
In contextualizing the theory, I propose that one should critically review the literature through “constant comparison” between the literature and the research problem at hand. “Constant comparison” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is a grounded theory approach used in qualitative studies that treats emerging categories and dimensions as being in a state of constant comparison with all other facets of the data to explore variations, similarities, and differences therein. I borrow the term here to suggest a process that constantly compares the theories and research findings one encounters in the literature review process with the research question at hand. This helps the researchers identify common overlaps and distinctive gaps between concept and context. Important questions can then be asked, including “How does this finding relate to the research question I have at hand? Does it support what I propose? Does it enrich what I propose? Does it contradict what I propose? If so, why?” Answering such questions can help the conceptualization of your research by contextualizing the theory.
Through the constant comparison of concept and context, gaps in the theory may be spotted, underlying assumptions challenged, or boundary conditions redefined. Specifically, assumptions are embedded in the contexts from which findings in previous studies were drawn. One should examine the assumptions, explicit or implied, and compare those assumptions to see whether they still hold in the context in which your research is embedded. For example, an implied assumption underlying work–life border theory is that there is a clear border between work and life. In traditional work arrangements, it is so. However, in the B&B innkeeping setting, this assumption does not hold. Essentially, the B&B setting entails a “borderless” working and living environment where the boundaries between the two spheres are blurred. Given that the underlying assumptions are challenged by the contextual factors at hand, do the theoretical predictions still hold in the B&B innkeeping setting? This was the question we set out to answer. We were not too worried about whether our findings would validate work–life border theory. If not, we had an opportunity to expand the theory and work–life balance literature by examining a borderless work–life environment. In doing so, we could identify the boundary conditions of a theory and fill in important gaps in our understanding of a particular research area.
Theorizing in an Applied Area of Research Through Cross-Fertilizing Between Context and Theory: When Concept Meets Context
Step 1: Explore the Tension Between Context and Concept
It is not uncommon for there to be some incompatibility between context and concept. When this happens, it is natural for aspiring researchers to feel uncertain and somewhat unsettled. I argue that systematic exploration of the tension between context and concept offers a valuable opportunity and an entry point for theorizing, especially in an applied area of research. By deliberately exploring the tension between context and concept, it will become increasingly clear whether research gaps, underlying assumptions, boundary conditions, or other important variables should be reexamined and thus create opportunities for theory building. According to Johns (2006), one should ask, “Does the context make the relationships suggested by the theory precarious?” and “Does the context threaten the validity of the theory?” Rousseau and Fried (2001) suggested that researchers should examine comparability, representativeness, range restriction, time, and levels of relevant constructs to explore the tension between context and concept. The tension of constraints versus opportunities, as well as similarity versus dissimilarity, can offer a viable way forward for theory building.
At this stage, I suggest that researchers follow the process of problematization to construct “opportunities for advancing knowledge about topics of investigative concern” (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997, p. 1029). Sandberg and Tsoukas (2011) emphasize that the purpose of problematization is to spot departures from the existing theories to construct opportunities for the development of theory by taking something that is commonly seen as good or natural to something problematic in some significant way. Foucault (1985) considered problematization as a process to understand how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently. I encourage interested researchers to survey the aforementioned work to develop a firmer grasp of the process.
Step 2: Cross-Fertilize the Context and the Concept to Catalyze Theory Building
Oswick et al. (2011) suggested a shift from theory generation based on unidirectional borrowing to a two-way process of correspondence premised on “conceptual blending” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002). Conceptual blending relies on comparison and correspondence between two “inputs” to derive new synthetic insights between two domains (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002). Building on the notion of conceptual blending, I propose a process of cross-fertilization between context and concept to generate new theories—so-called theoretical “embryos” that carry the “DNA” of both context and concept but that can also stand on their own in theory building. I consider such cross-fertilization as a generative engagement between context and concept. As visualized in Figure 1, the conceptualized context contains pieces of theoretical building blocks for the context to potentially become a part of the theory. In a similar vein, the contextualized concept includes (or lacks) pieces of contextual knowledge so that such contextualized conceptual understanding can create opportunities for theory building by highlighting gaps, challenging assumptions, or defining boundary conditions. The resulting theory building should be a manifestation of both context and concept.
The Interplay Between Context and Concept
Theoretical sensitivity (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is critical at this stage of the process. I use the notion of theoretical sensitivity here to mean researchers’ ability to use knowledge and experience about both context and concept to see the conceptualization and operationalization of the study as well as the subsequent results in new ways while thinking about the emerging patterns at a high-order and abstract level. Sensitivity toward the tension and interaction between context and concept allows the two to cross-fertilize and develop the conceptual embryo to a state of theoretical maturity. As Rousseau and Fried (2001) have suggested, “A set of factors, when considered together, can sometimes yield a more interpretable and theoretically interesting pattern than any of the factors would show in isolation” (p. 4).
Using Lin et al. (2019) as an example, the proposed attributes of the P2P context serve as conceptual building blocks for theorizing peer engagement behavior. Using social network theory (Burt, 1992) and its key notions (social actors, dyadic ties, and interconnected relationships) as a theoretical framework, we cross-fertilized the context and concept to develop the conceptual embryo of peer engagement behavior, theorize peer engagement behavior as distinctive from employee engagement behavior and customer engagement behavior (both well documented in the existing literature), and extend the engagement behavior literature via peer engagement behavior. The key attributes identified (peer focus, role duality, role fluidity, reciprocity, multidirectionality, dispersed beneficiaries, and strength of weak ties) are manifestations of both context and concept in a generative manner.
Conclusion
Our field needs research simultaneously driven by theory and context that is both rigorous and relevant. This commentary has sought to propose a viable road map to explore the interplay between context and concept toward theory building in an applied area of research. In this commentary, I have discussed a three-step approach of conceptualizing the context, contextualizing the concept, and cross-fertilizing the context and concept to systematically explore the interaction between context and concept in the interest of theory building. Specific steps at each stage of the process are also discussed. Table 1 summarizes the process.
A Step-by-Step Approach to Explore the Interplay Between Context and Concept
