When Methodologies Become Theologies,Applied Disciplines Falter

The Problem

A core problem in theory building methods, techniques, and processes is that the published approaches are generally based on particular methodological preferences. Two major contributions to theory building literature are the 1989 issue of the Academy of Management Review and the 2002 issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources. Each issue featured a collection of articles focused on theory building approaches, and every article within them took clear methodological approaches to presenting theorizing guidance.

The Academy of Management Review issue presented theory building from the case study view (Eisenhardt, 1989), the social contract view (Mentzer, 1989), the idiographic view (Tsoukas, 1989), the interpretive view (Weick, 1989), and the paradox view (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). Although not strictly methodologically based, each of these articles reflects a specific preference in its approach to theorizing that has it roots in an established methodology (e.g., the interpretive view). In the Advances in Human Resource Development issue, authors took a methodological approach to describing theory building in the following categories: (a) quantitative (Lynham, 2002), (b) social constructive (Turnbull, 2002), (c) grounded theory (Egan, 2002), (d) case study (Dooley, 2002), and (e) meta-analysis (Yang, 2002).

While these contributions are important and represent important advancements in our understanding of theory building, the choice of framing theory building based on inquiry methodology misses the mark. Theorizing should be problem-driven, rather than philosophy-driven. In other words, allowing methodologies to become the defining feature of theory building research blinds the theory scholar from the real issue—addressing practical problems to be understood. In defending such thinking, methodologies often become nothing more than distinctive essays of opinion, much like one of the definitions of theology: “Wishes and hopes are not theory. Sermons and preaching are not theory either” (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 86). When methodologies become theologies, applied disciplines falter.

Continuance of Current Practice

The core premise of this editorial is that in applied disciplines, framing theorizing from a methodology or view promotes the methodology or view over the issue the theorizing is intended to address. To continue down a path on which methodologies dominate the conversation about theory building would be to delay progress and miss the purpose of HRD theory building entirely. We have seen methodological debates rage on for a half century in applied disciplines. In his assessment of social scientists’ progress, Wilson (1998) wrote, “[In the social sciences] Cooperation is sluggish at best; even genuine discoveries are often obscured by bitter ideological disputes. For the most part, anthropologists, economists, sociologists and political scientists fail to understand and encourage each other” (p. 198).

“Some may prefer the intellectual chaos of the social sciences, mistaking it for creative ferment” (Wilson, 1998, p. 198). The result of such chaos is specific disciplinary jargon and fields that are related but do not talk to each other because they cannot speak the same language. Furthermore, to continue on this path results in ever increasingly specific experts in areas only truly understood by a small number of people, leading to a consistently lesser and lesser contribution to theory building and thus practical knowledge in applied disciplines. While the reference to Wilson (1998) is decades old, arguably, little has changed in the theorizing beliefs and behaviors of social scientists since.

Continued praise of methodology over compelling research questions will characterize a discipline in which specific philosophical, methodological (often becoming theological) preferences take precedence over important research. Many would-be methodology experts come up short when attempts to find evidence of their abilities to apply their favorite techniques are sought. The potential situation is reminiscent of prophets held up on pedestals for ideas that seemed great at the time, yet yielded little practical utility in the long run. In short, modern day priests and witch doctors dispensing their prescriptions based on belief systems, antiscience sentiments, and unproductive ponderings will only further divorce applied disciplines from the progress they so desperately need.

The result of continued current practices would be a simple zero-sum game of competition to replace one methodology, ideology and theology with another, over and over again.

A Solution

One clear solution is straightforward—Three key criteria are recommended for moving past lengthy philosophical, methodological, and ideological debates that do not advance applied research or theorizing: (a) Emphasize the purpose of the research or theorizing effort, (b) pay close attention to the intended boundary of the research or theorizing, and (c) promote cohesion among the choices throughout the research or theorizing effort (Swanson & Chermack, 2013). Each requires elaboration.

The purpose of a theory building project drives everything. Is the purpose to describe? To explain? To predict? Is the phenomenon new and emerging, or established and well-studied? The purpose of any research or theorizing effort frames the outcome and is, without question, the most important factor of any effort to generate or contribute to new knowledge (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2009).

Boundaries establish the context and location for the expected operation of the research or theory. Domains of inquiry can be bound by factors of organization, context, culture, ethnicity, region, time, and expertise, among others (Dubin, 1978; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Weick, 1989). The choice of how, where, and when to bound research or theorizing necessarily affects the outcomes.

The purpose and the boundary will enable the theorist to make progress. The concept of cohesion refers to all of the elements involved in the research or theorizing effort and applies directly to its purpose, content, measurement strategies, assessment strategies, and use. Alignment among these aspects of research and theorizing is what is referred to as cohesion, and if there are contradictions among these factors, the research or theorizing is in jeopardy.

Avenues to Success

Application of the three recommended criteria will ensure that research and theorizing in HRD are purpose-driven, have a defined context and location of use, and hold researchers and theorists accountable to consistency among their many choices along the way. Such a set of conditions would move the discipline beyond debates that have remained unsolved for centuries. No doubt there is utility in debate, but when it comes to debating ideologies in search of one that is superior, or framing inquiry based on methodological preferences rather than compelling and important questions, it does not allow the applied nature of the discipline to make progress.

To be sure, the philosophical foundations of how to study things in general are much less important than what is studied, why it is studied and what the outcomes of studying it are intended to be.

In practical terms, the tenets of how to advance the HRD discipline—focusing on what we study, why we study it, and the outcomes of studying it—will change the nature of our conversations. These are the kinds of questions and debates that will break our discipline out of the chains of methodologically driven inquiry that often become theologically based hardened positions. Free then to move into the realm where we belong: into applied realms for the purpose of solving practical problems.