Differentiating Between Conceptual and Theory Articles: Focus,Goals,and Approaches

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to promote conceptual and theoretical scholarship in human resource development by providing insights and guidance on differences between conceptual and theory articles and when and how to create such scholarship. First, we discuss the role of Human Resource Development Review and conceptual and theory articles in assisting human resource development in developing into a profession and expanding the field. Then, we determine that conceptual and theory articles are non-empirical works that differ from other non-empirical types of articles and from each other. Finally, we describe distinctions between conceptual and theory articles by clarifying their focus and goals and approaches to writing them. We illustrate these distinctions with examples of articles published in Human Resource Development Review. The article concludes with a discussion and implications for the field, the journal editors, and researchers.

Keywords

conceptual articles theory articles theory-building research

Kuchinke (2000) called attention to the lack of conceptual support required to sustain the breadth and depth of scholarship needed for application in practice and in research. Concepts and theories help human resource development (HRD) inform requisite research questions and inquiry and make them meaningful to the real world (Dubin, 1978; Garavan & Carbery, 2014). The need to develop conceptual support for empirical work and to build theory drove the development of Human Resource Development Review (HRDR).

HRDR’s role was to publish scholarship that linked research back to theory, contributed to the viability of theory in practice, and suggest tools to utilize theoretical products (Holton, 2002; Torraco & Holton, 2002). These tools could include illustrating models that could be tested empirically, challenging and expanding theoretical models, and providing insights on using new quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods techniques to advance scholarship. To emphasize this role of the journal and to draw attention to the importance of theory development for HRD, the decision was made not to publish empirical work in HRDR.

In the inaugural issue of HRDR, Holton (2002) articulated why the field needed to promote theory and theory building. He felt robust HRD-focused theory is a necessity for the field to grow and “to lead to better solutions to applied problems and better practice” (Holton, 2002, p. 4). Better practice would be accomplished through creation of theoretical models and theories that illustrate how we understand the problems and solutions encountered in practice (Dubin, 1969; Holton, 2002). Achinstein (1965) stated that theoretical models serve the same function as theories: “for purposes of explanation, prediction, calculation, systematisation, derivation of laws and so forth” (p. 106). However, theoretical models and theories serve this function in different ways due to their different natures. While theories provide a systematic and more complete explanation of a phenomenon, theoretical models are based on simplified assumptions and include a few key elements and interactions thereof. Based on this distinction, Achinstein argues for three unique contributions theoretical models could make. First, theoretical models can provide preliminary explanations when no theory exists, thus being a preliminary step in the development of a theory. Second, they could suggest insights into existing theories. Third, understanding a theoretical model could be a precursor to understanding a more complex theory. Theoretical models and theories could be empirically tested and further developed to continue sharpening and expanding the HRD knowledgebase and assist in theory building.

Most of Holton’s (2002) inaugural editorial discusses the importance of theory. It is not until he describes the mission of HRDR that conceptual articles are mentioned. He states that HRDR desires to publish four types of articles, including “theory development and conceptual articles” (p. 6). In line with this objective, HRDR publishes relevant articles under a section labeled “Theory and Conceptual Articles.” Even though HRDR makes the distinction by naming two article types in this label, we believe the distinctions in terms of the field and journal are blurred. The label simply separates these two article types from other types of articles that HRDR publishes, but does not help to differentiate a conceptual article from a theory article. This is the foundation of one problem the authors of this paper encountered when approaching the task we were invited to address—describing the differences between conceptual and theory papers. We maintain that conceptual articles are not the same as theory articles and this distinction is important. Research grounded in a solid conceptual and theoretical base is critical to orienting HRD applied interventions. Yet, how do we build a solid foundation when we treat conceptual and theory papers inconsistently, at times as if they are the same and other times as if they are different? This inconsistency causes students and emerging scholars to ask, “What is a conceptual paper?” and “What is a theory paper?” And this uncertainty may contribute to submissions that lack clarity of purpose and execution or simply decrease the number of submissions of these paper types.

In the field of HRD, conceptual papers should be a distinct type of paper because the first step in building theory and providing a platform to conduct empirical studies is conceptual development (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002a). Gilson and Goldberg (2015) distinguished between conceptual and theory papers stating that conceptual papers need to focus on a problem sharing new insights by connecting existing theories, working across disciplines, and providing in-depth insights that push the boundaries of a concept. Conceptual articles are a step in the process of building theory, providing a bridge to practitioners and broadening our ability to think, design, and have a meaningful impact on the field (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015). In other words, conceptual papers help us “break new ground” (Jaakkola, 2020, p. 25).

For the HRD field to achieve meaningful growth, it must produce conceptual and theoretical contributions (Seo et al., 2019) that can be challenged and further developed. The idea of understanding the world (theory) and informing the practices within it (conceptual) are necessary to grow a field and for a field to develop into a profession (Pavalko, 1988). A staple characteristic of a professionalized field is the utilization of rigorous theory and methodologies (Evarts, 1998) to advance scholarship. Understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the field and its scholarship, which builds theory unique to HRD, is needed for the field to prosper (Lynham, 2000).

Yet, as Gilson and Goldberg (2015) ponder the difference between conceptual, theory, and review papers, are they “just papers without data?” (p. 127) and are they different from one another? The purpose of this Instructor’s Corner is to promote conceptual and theoretical scholarship by providing insights and guidance on differences between conceptual and theory papers and when and how to create such scholarship. This Instructor’s Corner begins by differentiating conceptual and theory papers from sections of a manuscript (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009) and other types of papers. Then, we provide guidance and insight on how to write each article type by drawing on representative articles published in the “Theory and Conceptual Articles” section of HRDR and other relevant literature. Initially, we made a decision to first present conceptual papers then theory papers; later, we thought we should first discuss theory papers and then conceptual papers to be consistent with the section label, “Theory and Conceptual Papers” in the journal. However, after receiving feedback that questioned this order, we reverted to the original organization. This organizational dilemma is an example of the confusion that exists around these types of papers, their relationship to each other, and the inconsistent use of terms in academia. The article ends with discussion and implications for HRD scholars in service of growing conceptual and theorizing contributions for maturing the field.

Dispersing Some Confusion on What Conceptual and Theory Papers are Not

Conceptual and theory papers are important for their contributions to the growth of any field, including HRD. To gain clarity and disperse confusion on what conceptual and theory papers are, we describe what they are not. First, conceptual and theory papers should not be confused with empirical papers, which means they do not report on primary or secondary research data using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs (McGregor, 2019). Conceptual and theory papers could include empirical evidence but “only when it advances a theoretical issue” (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020, p. 8). While empirical papers typically follow the IMRD structure (i.e., introduction, method, results, and discussion), conceptual and theory papers do not follow one agreed upon structure, so the number of sections and their order varies (APA, 2020).

Second, because they are non-empirical, they are often confused with other non-empirical types of articles. Journals publish a variety of non-empirical papers. For example, HRDR publishes such other non-empirical articles as integrative literature reviews, structured literature reviews, and papers that provide insights on historical and philosophical foundations of HRD, theory-building methodology, and instruction around research. These articles are presented in the respective sections of the journal. Other journals publish other non-empirical papers, for example, opinion and counter-point essays, perspectives, or industry updates. Each of these non-empirical types of articles has its own role, focus, goals, structure, and even writing style.

Third, they should not be confused with theoretical and conceptual frameworks, which are necessary for empirical papers (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). Conceptual and theory papers discussed in this Instructor’s Corner and published in HRDR as “Theory and Conceptual Articles” are stand-alone contributions with their own structure. They are two distinct types of non-empirical articles. On the contrary, articles reporting on empirical studies typically include a component, or a section, labeled a “Literature Review,” “Theoretical Framework,” or “Conceptual Framework” (Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). This component of a manuscript often appears in the “I” or introduction section of a manuscript, after the purpose statement in the introduction section and before the method section. In the framework or review sections of a paper, relevant theories, concepts, or works are presented. This presentation is used to support the introduction section of the paper and the chosen research design and, hence, represents a stage in the empirical research process (APA, 2020). Literature reviews and theoretical or conceptual frameworks that exist as a component of a manuscript reporting on an empirical study are not being discussed in this paper. This paper is concerned with stand-alone manuscripts that are conceptual papers or theory papers.

Finally, conceptual and theory papers are not the same. In the next section, we provide a detailed discussion on these two types of papers.

Clarifying What Conceptual and Theory Papers Are

In the previous section, we determined that conceptual and theory papers are non-empirical works that differ from other non-empirical types of papers, including literature reviews, and from each other. In this section, we discuss what these paper types actually are. The core difference between the two is their focus: A conceptual paper focuses on one or more concepts and a theory paper focuses on a theory. A concept is a notion, a mental representation of something in reality, or an impression that something is a certain way. A concept is “an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances” (Merriam-Webster, n.d., para. 1). Therefore, authors of conceptual papers generalize or draw from existing research and their professional knowledgebase and imagination to create a new idea. In turn, a theory is “a best guess” (McLean, 2011, p. 210) about how something works in the world or an explanation about a process supported by evidence. Therefore, authors of theory papers either propose a new theory or re-think existing theories. The development of a theory goes through steps. The preliminary steps involve conducting literature reviews and writing conceptual papers, which describe the phenomenon, and proposing a conceptual model (sometimes known as a framework) that demonstrates the relationship between elements of the phenomenon, which can be tested to develop a theory.

Despite the different foci, they share a common role: While empirical papers are the staple fields are built on, conceptual and theory papers help a field to grow and flourish. Conceptual and theory papers take every day concepts, use some imagination, and produce new knowledge and insights. Ideation in minds, hearts, and on whiteboards brings ideas alive by developing them through structure, critique, and crucible into conceptual and theory papers framed by the rigor of research.

While these papers do not follow the IMRD structure, they share structural similarities. Both paper types start with an introduction that provides some background information, establishes the problem and purpose statement, the body of the paper, and a section(s) with implications for theory, research, and/or practice that conclude the paper. However, the structure of the body of the paper is always unique because each author takes a unique route to assemble a set of compelling arguments required for both conceptual and theory papers.

To further clarify what these paper types are, in the next sections, we focus first on conceptual papers and then on theory papers. For each paper type, we provide an overall description, typical structural components, and several common goals for writing these papers. Examples of articles published in HRDR are provided.

Conceptual Papers

Conceptual articles are the product of imagination. The author develops a concept by articulating a problem or connecting concepts or challenging the connection (or lack of) between concepts. The literature is then used creatively to explain a relationship, provide insight on a problem, or assume a position on an issue. The process of writing a conceptual paper requires abstract thinking to articulate the problem and purpose and skillful use of literature to support a coherent, compelling, and logical argument, which is illustrated through a mental representation of an idea, for instance in a model or taxonomy (Vargo & Koskela-Huotari, 2020).

Conceptual articles begin with the introduction that articulates the problem, issue, or relationship to be explored. As in the majority of article types, the introduction provides a background that illustrates the nature of the problem, describing the problem and its importance and building to the purpose statement. Authors of conceptual articles often generate the purpose statement and then build the paper to support the purpose. This purpose statement, after all, presents the nature of the problem in a way that is compelling and logical. The purpose statement could be followed by research questions, propositions, and hypotheses that the author uses to guide the argument. Before the purpose statement, authors present the concepts used to support the argument grounded in the relevant literature. Following the purpose statement, the author(s) describes the way these concepts will be used to respond to the research questions, propositions, or hypotheses or provides an overview of how the argument will proceed.

Often, the authors use the research questions, propositions, or hypotheses as headings to organize the argument. These responses to research questions, propositions, or hypotheses sometimes replace a discussion section and are followed by an implications section. Other times a discussion section might be useful to synthesize the ideas followed by implications. The implications section addresses the consequences of the argument for different stakeholders, such as practitioners, scholars, or policy makers. This section also provides suggestions for research that can challenge or support the purpose and main argument of the paper and useful methods and tools for conducting research to further develop or challenge the argument and its importance to different stakeholders. This generic outline of a conceptual paper might provide a useful guide, but conceptual papers do not follow one outline. While the rationale and purpose of the paper come within the first few pages and all include an implications section, how the argument proceeds varies.

Across various disciplines, conceptual articles serve many purposes: to transcend and interrogate dichotomies (Salomone, 1993), to link divergent elements (Salomone, 1993), to present an initial stage in conceiving a theory (Yadav, 2010), to suggest a conceptual model as a step in theory building (Callahan, 2010), to question assumptions surrounding a concept, to support a position, or to illuminate a lack of scholarship on an issue or concept. Conceptual papers published in HRDR contribute to the HRD knowledgebase in more than one way. In this section, we describe the five main goals of conceptual articles: 1) to further develop a concept, 2) to develop a model or framework, 3) to illuminate issues and problems, 4) to present a position, and 5) to suggest a new approach to research (see Table 1). We discuss each goal and approaches HRD authors have used to achieve the goal while providing examples of paper construction in the next sub-sections.

Table 1.

Goals, Approaches, and Examples of Conceptual Articles in HRDR.

№	Goal	Approach	Examples
1	Further develop a concept	1. Single concept:
		a. Introducing or defining a concept	Grenier and Kehrhahn (2008)
		b. Introduce a concept used in another field to the field of HRD	Madsen (2003)
		2. Two or more concepts:
		a. Use concepts to facilitate understanding of another concept	London and Diamante (2002)
		b. Use concepts to facilitate understanding of an atypical role or setting	Drodge and Murphy (2002)
		c. Proposing a relationship between concepts
2	Create a model or framework	a. Suggesting the elements of a new framework or model	Weinstein and Shuck (2011)
		b. Providing a historical view of an issue	Thijssen et al. (2008)
		c. Examining through a new or rarely used perspective
		d. Understanding a phenomenon, a practice, or a role	Carbery and Garavan (2007), Poell and Van der Krogt (2003)
3	Illuminate issues and problems		Ardichvili and Kuchinke (2002) McDonald and Hite (2005)
4	Present a position		Bunch (2007), Kaeppel et al. (2020), Shuck et al. (2016)
5	Suggest a new approach to research	a. Suggesting a perspective	Garavan et al. (2004)
5	Suggest a new approach to research	b. Suggesting a method	Grenier and Collins (2016)

Further Develop a Concept

Further developing concepts includes working with one concept or multiple concepts. When using a single concept, authors achieve this goal by introducing or defining the concept or by exploring a concept in a particular setting. Grenier and Kehrhahn (2008) focus on a single concept, expertise, indicating that while expertise is central to HRD models and definitions, little work examines the “development, maintenance, and adaptation” (p. 199) of expertise in terms of performance, career progression, organizational development, and other HRD concerns. The authors provide an overview of theories, models, and characteristics of expertise and present an emerging model, followed by a discussion and implications. In another paper, Madsen (2003) suggests the transtheory model of individual change from the allied health fields holds promise for the HRD field. The author presents the model, empirical research conducted to test the model, and limitations for use in HRD, before presenting the implications for HRD practice and research. Madsen’s (2003) article provides an example for the flow and organization of a paper when the intent is to introduce a concept used in another field to the field of HRD: First, present information on a model used in another field and then discuss the implications of the model for the HRD field.

When using multiple concepts, the approaches are to compare two or more concepts often for model development, to use multiple concepts to understand another concept not used in the field, to suggest a concept be used in a particular way, or to propose a relationship between concepts. As an example of using multiple concepts to understand another concept, London and Diamante (2002) sought “to define, develop the dimensions of, and present a set of testable propositions related to the construct of expansiveness—particularly technology-focused expansiveness” (p. 501). They build their argument by defining expansiveness, moving to a theoretical framework that briefly presents seven theories “that serve as a foundation for understanding expansive behaviors” (p. 506) followed by a section that discusses the integration, differentiation, and extension of the theories. Two foci of expansiveness are presented; antecedents and consequences are predicted to build a model, which is subsequently challenged through propositions that can be tested. The paper concludes with implications. Drodge and Murphy (2002) examine police leadership by exploring emotions using the concepts of rationality and emotionality, social construction of emotions, and emotional intelligence. First, they present a critique of “conventional understandings” (Drodge & Murphy, 2002, p. 422) of leadership, followed by a section on emotions, emotional labor, and emotional intelligence. Second, they include sections on emotions and leadership, coaching and mentoring for leadership, and then implications for research. This paper is an example of using concepts in a setting they are not often associated with, such as policing.

Suggest a Model or Framework

Some authors set out specifically to suggest a model or a framework. These models and frameworks represent main structures underlying a phenomenon/a, such as a process, problem, or relationship between concepts. They are presented in a graphic form to facilitate understanding, provide a visual representation of the relationships, and to inspire future research. Frameworks support systems. When a framework supports an empirical study, it is simply a component of a research paper that report findings of empirical studies (for more explanations, see earlier in “Dispersing Some Confusion on What Theory and Conceptual Papers are Not” and Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). Models are found in many types of papers, such as empirical studies to illustrate the relationship between variables to be investigated or to provide a visual representation of the results or findings. In conceptual papers, models and frameworks are the end point of the author’s or authors’ argument and represent the products their authors intended to provide.

In conceptual papers, these models and frameworks are built through a presentation of elements or of a historical view of an issue or by using a novel perspective to critique concepts. They are also built to understand a phenomenon, a practice, or a role. Poell and Van der Krogt’s (2003) focus was to create an “analytical framework” (p. 252) to understand the work and learning relationship through a presentation of concepts or ways of understanding work in organizations and employee learning. They felt the current “theoretical and empirical basis” of work and learning, “however interesting in themselves, is rather limited as yet” (p. 252). The paper begins by presenting elements of the actor model and then discussing core issues with the model based in the empirical research. This produces a table illustrating type of organization, work, and learning structures that leads to the next table, which presents the main characteristics of learning-program types and a figure that depicts using the actor model to analyze the relationship between learning and work. Conclusions about the application of the actor model and further research into the relationship between work and learning are the last sections.

An example of using a historical view of a concept to build a model is work by Thijssen et al. (2008) on employability using a critical analysis of the concept across time. The paper begins with definitions of employability and historical developments that focus on the boundaryless career. Then, the authors provide three perspectives on employability spanning three decades and discuss changes in how employability is viewed across the decades. This flows into a discussion of core, periphery, and external workers. The boundaryless career and new psychological contract bring the reader to a presentation of concepts that lay the foundation for and the components of the employability-link model through a series of section headings. The paper ends with an illustration of the model, discussion of the assumptions the model is based on, and future research.

Suggesting the elements of a new framework or model, Weinstein and Shuck (2011) argue that the social ecological framework should be used instead of general systems theory to understand the instructional systems design (ISD) process. They argue general system’s theory situates ISD “as asocial in orientation and application” (p. 286) and instead propose that a new perspective, the social ecological framework, be used to improve ISD’s effectiveness in organizations. This paper follows a traditional organization presenting the purpose, overview of ISD, and description and critique of the ADDIE model. Then, the authors provide a description of the social ecological theory and its applications in intervention research and in occupational health and safety training, concluding with future directions and implications. This paper is an example of setting the stage for a new ISD framework supported by the social ecological theory instead of the systems theory; however, the authors do not provide a visual illustration of the proposed ISD framework. The authors are not proposing a theory, but arguing that the social ecological framework replace systems theory to create a better framework for understanding the ISD process.

Carbery and Garavan (2007) propose a framework to explain the phenomenon of the participation of managers in career-focused learning and development and the role of managers in their formal learning and development. The elements of this framework are drawn from several areas, including career theory, adult learning and development, career adjustment, and HRD. The paper begins with a figure illustrating the conceptual framework they are proposing. This is followed by descriptions and discussions of the elements in the figure along with hypotheses. The paper concludes with discussion and implications.

Illuminate Issues and Problems

Some authors seek to discuss issues and problems with a given concept. For instance, Ardichvili and Kuchinke (2002) claimed that international and comparative research was growing and that while the concept of culture was central to this research, the use of culture warranted a critique. The authors discuss current and alternative approaches to culture highlighting methodological issues and other concerns with the different approaches. The authors provide insights on directions for international and comparative research. Another example is McDonald and Hite (2005) who address the need to reintegrate career development into HRD. The authors provide a framework for the reintegration, specify learning activities for employees and organizations, and recommend future research.

Present a Position

An author takes a position by articulating the problem with the way a concept is viewed. Bunch (2007) lists the accepted causes for failed training, such as methods, program design, and trainee characteristics, and states that training failure is instead caused by organizational culture. The paper begins with a discussion of training effectiveness and factors related to ineffective training, followed by a discussion of organizational culture and weak and dominant subcultures ending with recommendations for research.

Much of the literature on engagement assumes engagement is positive and a power neutral phenomenon. Shuck et al. (2016) took the position that engagement was laden with power and privilege and set about to deconstruct the concept. The paper begins with a conceptual framework detailing the concepts of employee engagement, power, and privilege. The next section critiques employee engagement through the lens of power and privilege guided by questions about control of work and the experience of employee engagement, who determines the value of engagement and who benefits from engagement. Each response ends with propositions. The paper concludes with insights and implications.

Kaeppel et al. (2020) take the position friendships between women in masculine organizations allow women to succeed. Self-determination theory and relational cultural theory are used to support the contention that women’s friendships satisfy psychological needs of workers in a marginalizing environment contributing to career success. The authors conclude the paper by challenging HRD scholars to “make space for and value women’s friendships in the workplace to benefit both individuals and institutions” (p. 362).

Suggest a New Approach to Research

When authors suggest a new approach to research, they propose a perspective or a method. Garavan et al. (2004) argue that HRD should embrace a level of analysis approach to research examining practice at the individual, organizational, and societal levels. The authors describe the levels and tensions within and between levels, followed by the conclusion. Grenier and Collins (2016) introduced facilitated autoethnography as a method for securing stories from workers, particularly those at the margins. They argue facilitated autoethnography has the potential to influence organizational culture and change. They begin by establishing storytelling as a way to learn and the collections of stories as a valid form of data. Then, they present their framework drawing from autoethnography, guided autobiography, and narrative inquiry. Next, they describe the CORE process and steps for conducting a facilitated autoethnography. The paper concludes with a discussion of the method and implications for HRD. The authors brought together concepts from different methods creating a framework to suggest a new method. The authors did not present the method as a theory-building method but instead as way of hearing the voices of people at the margins and as a way to assist organizations to capture organizational knowledge.

Summary

Outcomes of a well-written conceptual article are to generate new ideas, new solutions to problems, and to provide a foundation for empirical studies and theory development. Authors of conceptual articles use empirical studies and other theory and conceptual papers to craft their argument using speculative writing (Salomone, 1993). Speculative writing is reflective, uncensored, and imaginative. Conceptual papers might be more difficult to write than some other paper types because they represent the first step in a theory-building process. Therefore, authors of conceptual papers have to imagine the concepts and their relationships in a systematic and yet new way, suggest new problem-solving strategies, a new way of looking at a phenomenon, or raise new research questions. The way authors present their vision varies and is not linear like an empirical paper with standard components presented in an established order. Because of this focus on novelty combined with a lack of one established criteria, structure, or methodology for writing them, conceptual papers require more creativity and vision than other paper types. Authors of conceptual papers must be creative and imaginative. Imagination is required to challenge assumptions about a concept, compare a concept to another that goes against traditional thinking, or borrow concepts from unlikely fields to explain phenomena in HRD. Creativity is necessary to formulate the argument and organize the paper in a logical way to support the argument because traditional IMRD organization found in empirical studies are ineffective for conceptual articles. In the examples presented here, the authors begin with an introduction that includes a brief description of the problem, issue, or relationship, a statement of the purpose or goals, and a brief overview of how the paper/argument will proceed. Each concept is defined, described, and, discussed, before connecting the concepts. The number of concepts that might be described before they are connected varies depending on the argument being made. Illustrating the relationships between concepts through tables, figures, or models can be done as the argument proceeds or at the culmination of the argument. Presentations of a concept might be followed by propositions or research questions. The relationship between concepts might be presented ending with questions about the relationship, which are responded to in subsequent sections of the paper. However the paper is organized, conceptual papers provide insights on using the concepts or new framework to advance HRD scholarship and practice.

Theory Papers

Theory papers aim to advance the theoretical base of the HRD discipline. They focus on theory. Rudner (1966) defined theory as “a systematically related set of statements, including some lawlike generalizations, that is empirically testable” (p. 10). Theories describe some complex systems and their elements and explain how they work. In simple terms, theoretical papers present a set of arguments, logical explanations, or rational speculations to advance the authors’ idea of how some phenomenon works. Theory papers make predictions about the nature of some phenomenon, so they require solid and convincing reasoning grounded in relevant literature.

Theory papers share certain characteristics. As Steiner (1988) suggests, “one does not build theory from scratch” (p. 1), so authors begin by establishing a gap in the theoretical knowledge they aim to address and state a purpose. Because they are driven by arguments and often develop hypotheses for empirical testing, research questions are rarely posed in theory papers. Then, authors take various but unique routes to fulfill the purpose. The process of establishing a gap involves meticulous and purposeful review and integration of relevant literature, which could lead to formulation of several propositions or hypotheses for further testing. These articles “are discursive, relying on the author’s ability to frame and execute a sound argument” (McGregor, 2019, p. 505). They often present their arguments and outcomes in a graphic form, such as a model, and/or summarize key points in tables. They finish by providing implications for HRD research, theory, and/or practice.

Generally, in various disciplines, theory papers address several purposes, for example, to explore the development of a particular theory, to suggest a new theory, to critique an existing theory, to refine elements or constructs of a theory, to compare two or more theories, and to argue for benefits of one theory over another (APA, 2020). Theory papers published in HRDR contribute to the HRD theory base in more than one way. In this section, we describe the following four common goals: 1) to propose a new theory, 2) to re-examine an existing theory, 3) to suggest a foundation for a new theory, and 4) to provide recommendations for developing a theory on a particular HRD topic or in a particular work setting (see Table 2). In the following sub-sections, we explain each of these four goals and approaches HRD authors have used to achieve the goals. We also provide examples of how authors constructed their papers published in HRDR.

Table 2.

Goals, Approaches, and Examples of Theory Articles in HRDR.

№	Goal	Approach	Examples
1	Propose a new theory	a. Getting deeper understanding of a phenomenon	Danielson (2004), Lowe and Holton (2005), Wang and Wang (2004), Yang (2003)
2	Re-examine an existing theory	a. Challenging our understanding of an existing theory	Sachau (2007)
2	Re-examine an existing theory	b. Suggesting a potential or new value of an existing theory for HRD	Azevedo and Akdere (2011), Tosey and Mathison (2008), Veliquette (2013)
3	Suggest a foundation for a new theory	a. Developing a model, typology, or framework	Chermack (2004), Fritsch (2010), Russ-Eft (2002), Wei Zheng et al. (2009)
4	Provide recommendations for developing a theory	a. Critiquing relevant theories, establishing a need for a theory, and identifying possible directions in developing this theory	Egan et al. (2006), Torraco (2002)

Propose a New Theory

Authors could contribute by proposing a new theory “to gain greater understanding” (McLean, 2011, p. 210) of a phenomenon relevant to HRD. Theory building could be described as “the purposeful process or recurring cycle by which coherent descriptions, explanations, and representations of observed or experienced phenomena are generated, verified, and refined” (Lynham, 2000, p. 161). Theory-building research is conducted for many purposes. Three most relevant purposes to build theory in HRD are to explain and predict individual, team, or organizational behavior, to understand or make sense of a phenomenon, actions, or decisions, and to identify hidden ideologies that impact individual or organizational choices (Lynham, 2002a). Consequently, HRD researchers build theories from empirical-analytical, interpretative, or critical perspectives.

There is no formula or one accepted approach to proposing a theory in an article. For example, Yang (2003) suggested a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning. Yang starts by establishing a need for a new theory in adult education and HRD. Typically, individual learning is discussed from either a rational, interpretivist, or critical paradigm; however, Yang argues for the connections among these paradigms. Yang argues for the centrality of learning and knowledge in adult education and HRD and, hence, for an exploration of the relationships among the three paradigms. Then, Yang introduces his holistic theory of learning by explaining three facets of knowledge (i.e., explicit, implicit, and emancipatory) that are always present in adult learning activities. He describes each of these knowledge facets along 13 dimensions, including the nature, function, and direct source of the dimension, and summarizes this description in a table, which allows the reader to appreciate the differences among the facets. Then, Yang explains the processes that link the three knowledge facets and result in different learning modes. Finally, he suggests how learning at the individual level is connected to organizational and social learning. To help the reader navigate the proposed facets, processes, and relationships, Yang visualizes key points in two tables and two figures.

Danielson (2004) took a slightly different approach to proposing her theory of continuous socialization for organizational renewal. First, she conducted a search of relevant databases to identify published research on socialization. Her analysis of these articles revealed that socialization was seen as a one way-process where employees responded to a new workplace by accepting its values and traditions. Then, Danielson posed a research question, “Can an alternative theory of organizational socialization be developed to facilitate continuous organizational renewal and agility?” (p. 357). Second, to provide an answer, she used two theory-building approaches by Dubin (1978) and Lynham (2002b). As demonstrated in Table 3, these approaches suggest steps in the process of theory building. The steps are similar; however, Lynham (2002b) argues that ending the process with hypotheses testing is insufficient in HRD and other applied disciplines. She adds two more steps: Application of the theory in real-world practice and ongoing refinement and development of the theory by its continuous practical application and empirical and conceptual inquiry. Therefore, these approaches helped Danielson conceptualize a new theoretical model, by identifying units, laws of interaction, system states, and boundaries. Then, she operationalized the new model by developing propositions, empirical indicators of key terms, and hypotheses to later test the theory. Danielson included six tables and two figures to summarize key points and visualize the proposed relationships.

Table 3.

Comparison of Dubin’s (1978) and Lynham’s (2002a) Theory-Building Approaches.

Dubin’s (1978) Eight Steps Theory-Building Method	Lynham (2002a) General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines
1. Units—identify main ideas of the theory	1. Conceptual development—identify the key elements, describe the relationships, determine limitations
2. Laws of interaction—explicate how units are interrelated
3. Boundaries—determine the real-world domains where the theory applies
4. System states—specify conditions under which units remain operative
5. Propositions—identify truth statements about the theory to test empirically	2. Operationalization—translate the conceptual framework into elements that can be confirmed
6. Empirical indicators of key terms—determine empirical units of measurement
7. Hypotheses—translate propositions into predictions
8. Testing—conduct empirical research to test the hypotheses	3. Confirmation or disconfirmation—conduct empirical research to verify the theory
	4. Application—use in real-world practice
	5. Ongoing refinement and development—continuously revise the theory via its practical application and empirical and conceptual inquiry

Lowe and Holton (2005) proposed a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults. Their review of prior research around effective computer-based instruction indicated several shortcomings, including limited research on computer facilitated learning among adults and a lack of a comprehensive understanding of factors that impact computer-based instruction. To achieve their goal, they capitalize on Dubin’s (1978) theory building approach and Patterson’s (1986) eight criteria for judging theory in applied disciplines, which includes importance, precision and clarity, parsimony and simplicity, comprehensiveness, operationality, empirical validity or verification, fruitfulness, and practicality. Lowe and Holton (2005) developed a seven-step roadmap for new theory development, evaluation, and modification. They followed the first four steps to develop an initial theory while the remaining three, including testing, evaluation, and modification of the new theory, were beyond the scope of their research. The new theory is presented in a model followed by nine propositions that could be later converted into hypotheses for further testing.

Therefore, when proposing a new theory in HRDR, Danielson (2004) and Lowe and Holton (2005) only partially complete the theory building processes proposed by Dubin (1978) or Lynham (2002a). They follow several steps of these theory building processes to develop a conceptual framework of the theory and then translate the framework into propositions and/or hypotheses. The next element(s) of the theory-building process, testing (Dubin, 1978) or confirmation or disconfirmation (Lynham, 2002a), goes beyond the scope of these works or the journal. When authors (e.g., Yang, 2003) do not explicitly use these or any other theory-building approaches or criteria (e.g., see Lincoln & Lynham, 2011; Steiner, 1988; Storberg-Walker, 2003), they present only conceptual development of the new theory.

Re-Examine an Existing Theory

Another option for contribution to the HRD knowledgebase is to re-examine an existing theory to challenge our understanding of the theory (McLean, 2011) and to suggest its potential or new value for HRD. For example, Sachau (2007) proposed to “resurrect” (p. 377) Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory. He started with an observation that despite numerous criticisms of Herzberg’s theory, which had almost led to its dismissal, research in the field of positive psychology has been increasingly finding support for the theory. These contradictory perspectives provided grounds for Sachau’s investigation. Sachau summarized the theory and discussed the most common misinterpretations of the theory. Then, he reviewed studies in the field of positive psychology to show how they support Herzberg’s ideas. Sachau concluded by stating how the theory, if correctly interpreted, could be useful for research and practice in positive psychology and HRD. Similarly, Tosey and Mathison (2008) intended to evaluate Bateson’s theory of levels of learning because they believe the theory is “both fruitful and enigmatic” (p. 14) and relevant to HRD. The body of the paper consists of three parts. In part one, Tosey and Mathison provide an overview of Bateson’s biography and research contributions, background to the theory, and the theory itself. In part two, they focus on three aspects of the theory showing how each of them could be useful for HRD. In part three, the authors suggest a new perspective on the theory, acknowledge its limitations, and identify its potential use for a better understanding of organizational learning in HRD.

Suggest a Foundation for a New Theory

Some authors provide a foundation for a new theory by developing a model, a typology, or a framework as a starting point. This could be done by following an established theory development model. For example, Russ-Eft (2002) developed a typology of factors affecting transfer of training as “a first step in theory building” (p. 45) process developed by Dubin (1969). After an introduction, she discusses how a typology could contribute to theory development. Then, she presents the typology in a form of a table and provides a detailed description of its elements. The article concludes with implications for practice and theory development, including a future exploration of interaction among the elements, theory limits, and system states. Similarly, Chermack (2004) proposed a model of scenario planning. After a brief introduction, Chermack establishes the research problem as a lack of a theory of scenario planning and, hence, a lack of complete understanding of how scenario planning works. A model of the phenomenon serves as a solution and provides a theoretical foundation to a future theory. Then, he describes and follows Dubin’s (1978) theory-building method to complete the first five steps in the process and develop a model. Finally, the author suggests how future research could complete the remaining three steps of the process to test the theory. Seven figures are provided to illustrate the process and the model.

These models and frameworks could also be developed by a skillful use of other models and literature. Fritsch (2010) developed “a cross-disciplinary framework for a theory of personal politics” (p. 226). After providing a background and purpose, Fritsch defines the term politics and explains how this framework could contribute to HRD. Then, the article explains why research from the field of international relations is useful for HRD and presents the theory of international politics, its model, and limitations. Using the model of international politics, the author identifies elements and levels of personal politics and constructs the framework followed by a discussion of drivers and constraints of personal politics and its paradigm and assumptions. Then, the author elaborates on how the framework could be used in HRD and its limitations. Finally, Fritsch suggests how the model could be further developed, tested, and used in research. Similarly, Wei Zheng et al. (2009) proposed a framework of an organization’s life cycles as a foundation towards a theory of organizational culture revolution by reviewing relevant theories and models.

Provide Recommendations for Developing a Theory

A couple of researchers provided recommendations for developing a theory on a particular HRD topic or in a particular setting. They critique relevant theories, establish a need for a theory, and identify possible directions in developing this theory. Egan et al. (2006) aimed to provide “recommendations for future theory-building research” (p. 444) that connects career development and HRD and asked four research questions to guide their research. In the sections that followed, they explored definitions and outcomes of career development and core career development theories. Then, they suggest how career development and HRD could be integrated and how HRD theories on career development could be approached. Similarly, Torraco (2002) defined the purpose of his work as to establish “the need for better theory to explain learning at work” in the context of new technologies (p. 440). First, characteristics of tasks involving new technologies and the types of cognitive demands of these tasks are reviewed. Then, four learning theories that could explain learning demands when using technologies at work are selected using several criteria and discussed. The article concludes with implications for research on learning theory, a summary of five characteristics of an effective theory for the particular work setting, an explanation why learning and working should be studied together, and implications for theory-building research.

Summary

In this section, we described four goals HRD researchers pursue when writing theory papers: to propose a new theory, to re-examine an existing theory, to suggest a foundation for a new theory, and to provide recommendations for developing a theory. These papers begin by outlining a gap in theoretical knowledge and stating a purpose, which typically appear in the introduction. Then, these authors take slightly different routes. To propose a new theory, researchers often rely on an existing theory building approach (e.g., Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002a) or criteria (e.g., Patterson, 1986). These help conceptualize and operationalize the theory by developing propositions and/or hypotheses. To re-examine an existing theory, authors provide arguments for the importance, relevance, and/or potential application of the theory to today’s HRD research and practice. To develop a model, a typology, or a framework as a starting point for a new theory, authors follow an established theory development model or use other models, theories, and literature to develop their ideas. To identify prospects for a new theory, they critique relevant theories, establish a need for a theory, and identify possible directions in developing this theory. To increase clarity of their analyses and syntheses, authors typically present their arguments, key points, and outcomes in a graphic form. Therefore, theory papers include several models, figures, and/or tables. Finally, researchers finish by providing implications for HRD research, theory, and/or practice.

Discussion and Implications

While several commonalities exist among both conceptual and theory papers (see Table 4), their distinct differences matter to the sequence of constructing HRD research. Knowledge creation is like building a puzzle. Yet, if no distinction between the pieces is made, nor placed together with any understanding to how they logically go together, the desired picture will never arrive. Indeed, there is logic and distinction to how conceptual and theory articles contribute to the overall research picture. We believe increasing the clarity of the comparison between conceptual and theory papers increases the efficiency to construct and utilize HRD research meaningful to its growth and impact.

Table 4.

Key Similarities between Conceptual Articles and Theory Articles.

№	Dimension	Description
1	Role	Theory building
2	Paper type	Non-empirical
3	Overall structure	Not IMRD or any other one agreed upon structure
4	Common structural components	a. Introduction with background and problem and purpose statements
		b. Body
		c. Implications theory, research, and/or practice
5	Propositions or hypotheses	Common, but not mandatory
6	Drivers	Arguments, logic, relevant literature
7	Use of tables	Frequent, to summarize literature or/and arguments
8	Models, frameworks, hypothesis, propositions for future empirical testing	Common, but not mandatory

Too often non-empirical articles are simply referred to as “theoretical.” Some data-driven researchers consider these article types less important or not as labor-intensive as articles that publish results of empirical studies. By clarifying what conceptual and theory articles are, we hope to change these assumptions. More research is needed to explore other types and sub-types of non-empirical works that could contribute to the development of HRD.

In 1965, Peter Achinstein set out to make a distinction between theoretical models and other models. He did not name the other models “conceptual models” though reading his article this is what we would name them. This lack of distinction made by scholars persists (e.g., McGregor, 2019; Vargo & Koskela-Huotari, 2020). We believe the distinction is important; clarifying and consistently relying on the distinction will add value to the field. The importance of this distinction comes first from the two theory-building approaches, Dubin (1978) and Lynham (2002a), we use in this paper that begin with identifying the main ideas, key elements, and relationships, which constitutes conceptual development.

Therefore, conceptual development is the first step in theory building, and this step is presented as a conceptual article. A great example would be the development of the concept national HRD (NHRD) into a theory. As McLean (2014) describes, the process began with a definition of HRD grounded in economic development (Harbison & Myers, 1964 cited in McLean, 2014). Over a series of conceptual articles, literature reviews, and case studies, McLean and colleagues further developed the concept of NHRD (Alagaraja & Githens, 2016) and engaged in an argument with colleagues about its potential as a theory (McLean et al., 2008; Wang & Swanson, 2008a, b). Yet, theory development is difficult because NHRD approaches differ by country. McLean suggests that two articles by Alagaraja and Wang (2012a; 2012b) are a beginning step because the authors develop a NHRD strategy model. This example of papers published in HRDR illustrates that conceptual papers come before theory development papers. They can be written because scholars must describe the concepts, the relationships between the concepts, and the implications for theory development before actually describing the theory, the assumptions that support the theory, and suggest future research to test the theory.

Journal editors in different disciplines, for example, marketing management (Belk et al., 2019), organizational theory (Cornelissen et al., 2021), management (Cropanzano, 2009), group and organization management (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015), information systems (Hirschheim, 2008), and marketing science (Hulland, 2020), have written essays to encourage submissions of conceptual or theory papers and explain what they are. Many of these essays conflate these types of papers. This is a problem. Conflating two terms by using them interchangeably is an issue Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009) addressed describing the differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks as a part of the introduction section of an article. We feel that if scholars learn to distinguish between a conceptual article and a theory article, more meaningful work can be done because this distinction can lead to greater focus and a clearer purpose (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Key Differences between Conceptual Articles and Theory Articles.

	Dimension	Conceptual Articles	Theory Articles
1	Focus	A concept	A theory
2	Purpose	Create a new idea with creative construction using one or more concepts	Propose a new theory or re-think existing theories
3	Examples of goals	1) to further develop a concept, 2) to develop a model or framework, 3) to illuminate issues and problems, 4) to present a position, and 5) to suggest a new approach to research	1) to propose a new theory, 2) to re-examine an existing theory, 3) to suggest a foundation for a new theory, and 4) to provide recommendations for developing a theory on a particular HRD topic or in a particular work setting
4	Research questions	Common	Rare
5	Role of literature review	Supplies reference to established knowledge that assist in the ideation of a new idea	Provides demonstrated relationships between elements of a phenomenon to help develop or re-think a theory
6	Tools	Require more creativity and vision than other paper types	Use theory building approaches (e.g., Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002a) or criteria (e.g., Patterson, 1986)
7	Writing style	Speculative	Assertive
8	Use of models or frameworks	Often intend to create a model or framework	Often use models to illustrate relationships but do not start with this intention
9	Step in theory building process	First, precedes theory development	Second, follows conceptual development

We often tell students to define terms as a term is introduced into a paper and to use terms consistently, yet many senior scholars use the terms conceptual and theory as if they mean the same thing. Philosophers and dictionaries do not define these words the same. A simple Google search to the question, “What is a concept?”, produces the following descriptions: “an abstract idea; a general notion; a plan or intention” (Oxford Languages, n.d.a). The response to the question, “What is theory?”, produces this response: “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained” (Oxford Languages, n.d.b). Another web page, Sciencing, states that a concept refers to an abstract idea while a theory is a principle supported by evidence with the ability to explain a phenomenon and predict future events (Mumson, 2021). More other examples consistently make similar distinctions between a concept and a theory.

Conflating terms confuses students and scholars. Conflating labels in a journal or just inconsistent use also produces confusion. In our discussion of conceptual articles, we use two works, Garavan et al. (2004) and Grenier and Collins (2016), that could illustrate this confusion. Grenier and Collins’ article is listed on the HRDR issue’s table of contents under “Theory and Conceptual Articles.” The Garavan et al. paper is in an earlier volume when the table of contents had no article labels. When the actual articles are opened, there is no section label on the first page. When the abstracts for these papers are accessed on-line, the label, “Research Article,” can be found. This illustrates two issues with the labels used in HRDR. First, they are inconsistently used between the table of contents, the article, and the abstract. Also, a research article implies data, so possibly a better label for these types of articles, for example, “Methods Articles” or “Research Methods Articles,” should be used. Second, they reflect the development of HRD as a field. HRDR’s classification of all article types began in 2011 (Vol. 10 No. 4) indicating an evolution of the field and its theory-focused journal. In this Instructor’s Corner, despite the confusion, we have left the discussion of suggest a new approach to research as a goal of conceptual papers because when we selected these papers they met our criteria—they used concepts to argue a point.

We suggest HRDR’s section labeled “Theory and Conceptual Articles” should be separated into two sections: “Theory Articles” and “Conceptual Articles.” The creation of the two sections would assist HRDR’s editors and researchers in understanding the scope of theory and conceptual articles and tracking the theoretical development of the field. The editors could use this information to shape the direction for journal development and the researchers—to identify relevant works to model after, build upon, or expand in their own work. Separating these types of papers and providing guidance on the differences will help scholars understand the many ways in which they could contribute to the theoretical and conceptual knowledgebase of the field and craft papers that are better organized and have a clearer purpose. Also, editors of HRDR should re-examine the order of articles published under one section, “Theory and Conceptual Articles” or the order of two separate sections, “Theory Articles” and “Conceptual Articles.” Because conceptual papers precede theory papers in the theory building process, they should be presented first in the journal. Therefore, HRDR’s section labeled “Conceptual Articles” should precede its section labeled “Theory Articles.” Similarly, if the editors decide to continue publishing these two article types under one section, its label should read “Conceptual and Theory Articles.”

If we hope to grow the field of HRD through creation and establishment of theories, we need to understand the path to creating a theory. This path often includes starting with a literature review and/or conceptual paper, and, as in the example of NHRD, multiple literature reviews, conceptual papers, and case studies could be published to build a foundation for explaining the relationships among concepts that build a theory (Casanave & Li, 2015).

This Instructor’s Corner provided explanations of nine goals and approaches to writing conceptual and theory articles: five of these goals and approaches involved conceptual articles and four involved theory articles. Of these five goals and approaches of conceptual articles, two clearly could serve as precursors to theory papers: to further develop a concept and to create a model or framework. Articles that satisfy these two goals do not necessarily become part of the foundation of a theory. Each goal of conceptual articles can produce an article that is simply a conceptual article and that does not become part of the body of work that supports the development of a specific theory. However, all four of the theory articles’ goals and approaches are working towards contributing to the theory development in the field.

The scholars writing conceptual articles who wish to create theory need to further develop and challenge the ideas they present in a paper that introduces a concept, explores a concept in a specific setting, or compares two or more concepts to create a model, facilitate understanding of another concept, or propose a relationship as another step in the development of theory. Not only do the original authors of a conceptual paper need to challenge or expand on the ideas they presented in a first paper, other scholars need to engage the purpose of the original contribution by disputing some facet of the contribution, suggesting additional elements, or using the ideas in another setting. The example of NHRD has multiple articles written by a variety of authors doing all these things working towards theory development. For this reason, we believe NHRD is a good example of a concept being further developed and challenged by scholars in the field working towards theory development.

This Instructor’s Corner provided examples from about 30 articles published in HRDR. We advise novice scholars as well as experienced researchers seeking for greater understanding of these article types to closely examine some of these articles when crafting theory and conceptual papers. However, the articles in this Instructor’s Corner do not account for all theory and conceptual papers that have been published in HRDR. Researchers should consider exploring other papers published in the “Theory and Conceptual Articles” section of HRDR and relevant articles in sections “Foundations of HRD” and “Theory Building Research Methods” as well as editorials and other “Instructor’s Corner” essays. Researchers should explore these papers to serve as examples of how to organize a paper of a similar type and purpose and use relevant content to support and develop their arguments.

The world needs new and inspired interventions to serve people more than ever in a post-pandemic workplace. Conceptual and theory-based contributions have the power to positively contribute to HRD by creating opportunities to understand work differently and stimulate our imaginations to push boundaries and traditional thinking. Opportunity without action is meaningless. Opportunity seized through purposeful action is unstoppable. We as HRD scholars have a dedicated stage, HRDR, which supports conceptual and theoretical work.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tonette S. Rocco

Maria S. Plakhotnik

Dave Silberman

Author Biographies

Tonette S. Rocco is a professor in adult education and human resource development at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. She co-edited the 2020 Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education (Rocco, Smith, Mizzi, Merriweather & Hawley, 2020), and the Handbook of HRD (Chalofsky, Rocco, and Morris 2014). She is Editor-in-Chief of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development.

Maria S. Plakhotnik, EdD, is an associate professor in the department of management at HSE University, Russia. She is a recipient of the 2015 AHRD Monica M. Lee Research Award and a finalist of the Malcolm S. Knowles 2011 Dissertation of the Year Award. Maria also serves as Editor of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development and editorial board member for Human Resource Development Quarterly, Industrial and Commercial Training, Adult Learning, and Central European Management Journal.

Dave Silberman, PhD, is an adjunct professor in administrative sciences at Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts, and is a seasoned entrepreneurial strategist, co-founder, and senior executive. Dave is a law enforcement veteran and decorated disabled combat veteran for his service for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army.

References

1.
Achinstein P. (1965). Theoretical models. The British Journal of Psychiatry. Supplement, 16(62), 102–120. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/686152

2.
Alagaraja M. Githens R. P. (2016). Capacity and capability building for national HRD: A multi-level conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 15(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315623908

3.
Alagaraja M. Wang J. (2012a). Development of a national HRD strategy model: Cases of India and China. Human Resource Development Review, 11(4), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312446190

4.
Alagaraja M. Wang J. (2012b). Reflections on the invited response: Dominant themes in current NHRD research. Human Resource Development Review, 11(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312458567

5.
American Psychological Association (2020) Publication manual of the american psychological association author. (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

6.
Ardichvili A. Kuchinke K. P. (2002). The concept of culture in international and comparative HRD research: Methodological problems and possible solutions. Human Resource Development Review, 1(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302012002

7.
Azevedo R. E. Akdere M. (2011). Examining agency theory in training & development: Understanding self-interest behaviors in the organization. Human Resource Development Review, 10(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311412150

8.
Belk R. MacInnis D. J. Yadav M. S. (2019). Personal accounts and an anatomy of conceptual contributions in the special issue. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1579476

9.
Bunch K. J. (2007). Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture. Human Resource Development Review, 6(2), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307299273

10.
Callahan J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371492

11.
Carbery R. Garavan T. N. (2007). Conceptualizing the participation of managers in career-focused learning and development: A framework. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 394–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307552

12.
Casanave C. Li Y. (2015). Novices’ struggles with conceptual and theoretical framing in writing dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3(2), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3020104

13.
Chermack T. J. (2004). A theoretical model of scenario planning. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304270637

14.
Cornelissen J. Höllerer M. A. Seidl D. (2021). What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020328

15.
Cropanzano R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for journal of management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344118

16.
Danielson M. M. (2004). A theory of continuous socialization for organizational renewal. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 354–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304271528

17.
Drodge E. N. Murphy S. A. (2002). Interrogating emotions in police leadership. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 420–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302238435

18.
Dubin R. (1969). Theory building. Free Press.

19.
Dubin R. (1978). Theory building (2nd ed.). Free Press.

20.
Egan T. M. Upton M. G. Lynham S. A. (2006). Career development: Load-bearing wall or window dressing? Exploring definitions, theories, and prospects for HRD-related theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 5(4), 442–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484306294155

21.
Evarts T. M. (1998). Human resource development as a maturing field of study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920090409

22.
Fritsch J. (2010). Toward a theory of personal politics. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310370312

23.
Garavan T. N. McGuire D. O’Donnell D. (2004). Exploring human resource development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304271669

24.
Gilson L. L. Goldberg C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425

25.
Grenier R. S. Collins J. C. (2016). “Man, have I got a story for you”: Facilitated autoethnography as a potential research methodology in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316656658

26.
Grenier R. S. Kehrhahn M. (2008). Toward an integrated model of expertise redevelopment and its implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308316653

27.
Hirschheim R. (2008). Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(8), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00167

28.
Holton E. F. (2002). The mandate for theory in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011001

29.
Hulland J. (2020). Conceptual review papers: Revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00168-7

30.
Jaakkola E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

31.
Kaeppel K. Grenier R. S. Björngard-Basayne E. (2020). The F word: The role of women’s friendships in navigating the gendered workplace of academia. Human Resource Development Review, 19(4), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320962256

32.
Kuchinke K. P. (2000). Debates over the nature of HRD: An institutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development International, 3(3), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860050128474

33.
Lincoln Y. S. Lynham S. A. (2011). Criteria for assessing theory in human resource development from an interpretive perspective. Human Resource Development International, 14(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.542895

34.
London M. Diamante T. (2002). Technology-focused expansive professionals: Developing continuous learning in the high-technology sector. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 500–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302238438

35.
Lowe J. S. Holton E. F. (2005). A theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305276301

36.
Lynham S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Quarterly, 11(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-1096(200022)11:2<159::AID-HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-E

37.
Lynham S. A. (2002a). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin’s method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/15222302004003003

38.
Lynham S. A. (2002b). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043002

39.
Madsen S. R. (2003). A model for individual change: Exploring its application to human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 2(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303256199

40.
McDonald K. S. Hite L. M. (2005). Reviving the relevance of career development in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305281006

41.
McGregor S. L. T. (2019). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide. Sage.

42.
McLean G. N. (2011). Writing theory, conceptual, and position articles for publication. In Rocco T. S. Hatcher T. (Eds), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 209–221). Jossey-Bass.

43.
McLean G. N. (2014). National HRD. In Chalofsky N. Rocco T. S. Morris M. L. (Eds), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 643–660). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118839881.ch37

44.
McLean G. N. Lynham S. A. Azevedo R. E. Lawrence J. E. S. Nafukho F. M. (2008). A response to wang and swanson’s article on national hrd and theory development. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308316486

45.
Murmson S. (2021). The differences between concepts, theories, and paradigms. Sciencing. https://sciencing.com/two-benefits-using-models-represent-scientific-processes-10590.html.

46.
N Garavan T. Carbery R. (2014). Advancing HRD theory. European Journal оf Training and Development, 38(4), 262–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-03-2014-0028

47.
Oxford Languages (n.d.a). Concept. Oxford University Press and Google Dictionary. https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+concept

48.
Oxford Languages (n.d.b). Theory. Oxford University Press and Google Dictionary. https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+theory

49.
Patterson C. H (1986). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy (4th ed.). Harper & Row.

50.
Pavalko R. M. (1988). Sociology of occupations and professions. Peacock Publishers.

51.
Poell R. F. Van der Krogt F. J. (2003). Learning-program creation in work organizations. Human Resource Development Review, 2(3), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303256996

52.
Rocco T. S. Plakhotnik M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617

53.
Rudner R. S. (1966). Philosophy of social science. Prentice-Hall.

54.
Russ-Eft D. (2002). A typology of training design and work environment factors affecting workplace learning and transfer. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011003

55.
Sachau D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307546

56.
Salomone P. R. (1993). Trade secrets for crafting a conceptual article. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(1), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993.tb02280.x

57.
Seo J. Noh K. B. Ardichvili A. (2019). Theory building and testing in HRD: Current advancements and future directions. Human Resource Development Review, 18(4), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319871698

58.
Shuck B. Collins J. C. Rocco T. S. Diaz R. (2016). Deconstructing the privilege and power of employee engagement: Issues of inequality for management and human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316643904

59.
Steiner E. (1988). Methodology of theory building. Educology Research Associates.

60.
Storberg-Walker J. (2003). Comparison of the dubin, lynham, and van de ven theory-building research methods and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 2(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303002002007

61.
Thijssen J. G. L. Van der Heijden B. I. J. M. Rocco T. S. (2008). Toward the employability—link model: Current employment transition to future employment perspectives. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308314955

62.
Torraco R. J. (2002). Cognitive demands of new technologies and the implications for learning theory. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 439–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302238436

63.
Torraco R. J. Holton E. F. (2002). A theorist’s toolbox. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011007

64.
Tosey P. Mathison J. (2008). Do organizations learn? Some implications for HRD of Bateson’s levels of learning. Human Resource Development Review, 7(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307312524

65.
Vargo S. L. Koskela-Huotari K. (2020). Advancing conceptual-only articles in marketing. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10(1–2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00173-w

66.
Veliquette A. J. (2013). Structuration theory’s relevance to HRD: A review and application. Human Resource Development Review, 12(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461636

67.
Wang G. G. Swanson R. A. (2008a). The idea of national HRD: An analysis based on economics and theory development methodology. Human Resource Development Review, 7(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307311415

68.
Wang G. G. Swanson R. A. (2008b). Economics and human resource development: A rejoinder. Human Resource Development Review, 7(3), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308320200

69.
Wang G. G. Wang J. (2004). Toward a theory of human resource development learning participation. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 326–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304271152

70.
Wei Zheng W. Qing Qu Q. Baiyin Yang B. (2009). Toward a theory of organizational cultural evolution. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309333619

71.
Weinstein M. G. Shuck B. (2011). Social ecology and worksite training and development: Introducing the social in instructional system design. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311411074

72.
Yadav M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.1.1

73.
Yang B. (2003). Toward a holistic theory of knowledge and adult learning. Human Resource Development Review, 2(2), 106–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303002002002