Introduction
Theories often play a crucial role in developing academic research. The importance of theories in research is especially profound in the conceptualization and guidance of research findings. Ironically, Henderikus (2010) reports the lack of a common conception of theory among researchers. However, since doctoral research greatly relies on theoretical constructs, this paper analyzes several conceptions of theory, types of theory, and the contribution of research to theoretical development. This analogy mirrors the relationship between theory and research.
Literature Review
In the 19th century, Darwin presented a set of scientific explanations to explain initial scientific evidence naturalists had gathered regarding evolution (Jay, 2002). Darwin’s contribution to science is widely used in natural sciences, but generally, it highlights the nature of theory in most scientific disciplines. Darwin’s explanation is therefore widely used to explain most scientific theories because he demonstrated that guessing or formulating ideas do not inform theory (only scientific evidence does so) (Jay, 2002).
According to Gelso (2006), theories can describe scientific phenomena, delimit scientific observations, generate new scientific ideas and frameworks or integrate new and existing theories (p. 2). The descriptive function is centered on causal factors which explain why things happen the way they do. The delimiting function analyzes the boundaries of examining a specific phenomenon while the generative function analyzes existing research as a process to develop new knowledge (heuristic value) (Gelso, 2006). This latter function usually strives to inspire the development of new research. Gelso (2006) also defines the integrative function of theories as a system, which provides a platform where new and old ideas merge to form new ones.
Theories are often commonly confused with other concepts such as hypotheses, models, paradigms and concepts. Dubin (1978) explains the difference between theories and concepts by defining a concept as a phenomenon that scientific knowledge tries to explain. Theories are therefore antecedents of concepts because through concepts, theories are developed. Stated differently, Gay (2011) defines a concept as “a mental image that summarizes a set of similar observations” (p. 26). Concepts are unique because of their associated values (through observation, it is easy to determine their values and associated forms in different variables).
Apart from the confusion with concepts, theories have also been confused with propositions. Cozby (2009) believes propositions explain the relationship between two concepts (this assertion shows the relationship between propositions and concepts). Gelso (2006) also sights another relationship between propositions and hypotheses by explaining the dependence of hypotheses on propositions. In other words, propositions are similar to hypotheses, except for the ability of hypotheses to be tested. Indeed, hypotheses normally predict a measurable value (using dependent and independent variables) and exceptionally, they present a null form (where there is no relationship between variables) which tests in research.
Gay (2011) also presents the relationship between hypotheses and theories as an explanation for the way hypotheses bridge theories and data. However, drawing on the understanding of hypotheses, at one time, theories were mere hypotheses because they based their validity on tentative and testable observations (which are free from scientific evidence). However, Stam (2007) shows that when hypotheses receive a substantial level of support among the people and they provide a consistent way of explaining a given phenomenon, they are elevated to the level of a theory (but even at this point, they are not considered to be proven theories). Instead, these hypotheses provide the best scientific explanation regarding a specific phenomenon (using consistent integrative and predictive validity). For example, the global warming and evolution theories are peer-reviewed and tested using scientific methodologies and this is why they have garnered enough support in science (thereby graduating both theories above mere hypotheses to credible scientific theories). Therefore, as opposed to hypotheses, scientific research validates scientific theories.
Models, diagrams, and paradigms are also often confused with theories but as Gay (2011) posits, they complement the nature of theories. Gay (2011) also elaborates that
“While diagrams and models build theory and visualize the inter-relatedness of variables showing their causal direction and strength of relationship, theory must be used to explain what the diagram shows as opposed to the diagrams explaining the theory (theories inform why these relationships were observed)” (p. 26).
From the above assertion, models and diagrams stand to explain the existing relationship between theories, but in their own right, they do not signify theories. Harlow (2009) explains that different phenomenal aspects of the social world find their roots in paradigms but theories flesh out and explain these phenomenal aspects of the social world. In other words, theories flesh out paradigms. Kerlinger (1986) explains that systematic statements that explain social issues constitute theories. Indeed, theories play a pivotal role in bridging natural systems with human experience so that it is easier to understand what happens around us. Contrary to common usage, the nature of theory finds its support from scientific evidence, as opposed to individual interpretations or explanations (Harlow, 2009). Common perceptions of theories therefore characterize widespread speculation without any scientific support (Harlow, 2009). For example, under the scientific perception of theory, it is incorrect to portray global warming and evolution as mere theories because they find their basis on scientific evidence. Through these definitions, it is easier to understand the relationship between theories, paradigms, models, hypotheses, and concepts.
Views Regarding What Constitutes a Theory
First View
According to Wacker (1998), a theory must have at least four basic criteria, which characterize the definition of concepts, the constriction of domains, the development of new relationships and the ability to predict new scientific relationships (p. 1). Concerning conceptual definitions, Wacker (1998) explains the importance of theories to outline what constitutes their scope and what they specifically exclude. Using the same philosophy, Gay & Weaver (2011) explain that unique theories exclude many issues while common theories include many conceptual definitions.
Wacker (1998) also contends that conceptual definitions used in a theory should mirror the definitions used in the same empirical studies. Therefore, there should not be any significant differences between the analytical methodologies and the operating methodologies in the empirical studies. From the same understanding, Wacker (1998) insists, “it does not seem logical for analytical methods to use conceptual definitions for their mathematical convenience if these definitions have no hope of ever being operational while measuring empirical studies” (Wacker, 1998, p. 377).
According to Wacker (1998) second basic criterion for theories (domain limitations), theories should be mathematically and logically developed. The mathematical development may include the use of statistical inferences to support the theory’s structure (Wacker, 1998). These theories should find their basis on empirical evidence, which may also base their structures on experimental designs that narrowly control domains (statistical sampling methodologies may also support experimental research). Finally, case studies constitute theoretical domain limitations.
Comprehensively, the above attributes define Wacker (1998, p. 378) assertion of the importance of theories to have a domain limitation. Domain limitations are mainly useful in enabling theories’ statistical testing. Wacker (1998) third theoretical component is the need for theories to have a “relationship-building” attribute. This attribute establishes if the variables have a conspicuous relationship. The importance of establishing this relationship is an important research fact for empirical researchers. Indeed, this process ensures that all the empirical models have a coherent understanding of “why” and “how” such variables are related.
Finally, Wacker (1998) assertion of the need for theories to be predictive highlights the importance of testing the theories in the external and empirical worlds. In other words, Wacker (1998) encourages the need for theories to be predictive to ease their support in empirical research.
Second View
Kaufman (1954) proposes a second view regarding the components of a theory. His view is the instrumental view because he highlights the importance of theories to have an instrumental conception. The instrumental conception view stipulates the importance of theories to provide a guide to action. This view supports the provision of tools and mechanisms for people to cope with everyday issues. Kaufman (1954) also explains the need for theories, which have an instrumental conception view to exhibit two components – ultimate ideals and intermediate ideals.
In political philosophies, ultimate ideals may denote freedom, social cohesion, or growth but they may also conceal real demands (Grant, 2002). Kaufman (1954) explains that ultimate ideals have often played an ornamental value in research but they are very important in advancing an instrumental character to scientific theories. Kaufman’s second view is the intermediate ideal because it informs policy recommendations (in political philosophies) to support a specific action. Considering the above theoretical insights, Kaufman (1954) theoretical view emphasizes the importance of theories to play an instrumental role to guide actions.
Third View
Sutton and Staw (1995) propose the main constituent of a theory to be its ability to answer fundamental disciplinary questions. In this regard, Sutton and Staw (1995) explain the importance of theories to demonstrate and disseminate causal relationships (and the order or timing of the events that cause this causal relationship). Sutton and Staw (1995) view receives support from Stam (2010) who believes in the need for theories to provide an explanation for the existence of causal relationships in most disciplinary dilemmas.
Comparison of the Three Views
The theoretical views of Sutton and Staw (1995) mirror Wacker (1998) view of the same. Indeed, this paper shows that Wacker (1998) explains the need for theories to have a relationship-building attribute to explain the coherence of variables. Sutton and Staw (1995) also emphasize the need for theories to demonstrate causal relationships (through an explanation of the relationship between different variables). To this extent, Sutton and Staw (1995) view augur well with Wacker (1998). However, based on the three views discussed above, Wacker (1998) view of theories exposes more detail because it is expansive in scope.
Indeed, Wacker (1998) suggests the need for theories to demonstrate “conceptual definitions, domain limitations, relationship-building, and predictions” (p. 378). In the third view (described above), Sutton and Staw (1995) only emphasize the need for theories to explain causal relationships. They do not divulge any other theoretical components. Under the second view, Grant (2002) only focuses on the importance of theories to have a meaning. In other words, she emphasizes the need for theories to demonstrate a guide to action. In this respect, Grant’s view is similar to the first and third views because Sutton and Staw (1995) and Wacker (1998) all advance the importance of theories to advance causal relationships as a guide to action.
Notably, all the three views discussed above emphasize the importance of incorporating scientific research as a basis for comprehending theories. Wacker (1998) however shows more emphasis to this issue because he stresses the need for theories to have a basis of comparison to empirical studies. Nonetheless, the three views discussed above highlight the reliance on scientific evidence and the incorporation of empirical evidence to support theories.
Relationship between Theory and Research
Harlow (2009) explains that the diversity witnessed in defining a theory also characterizes the diversity witnessed in explaining the relationship between theories and research. Despite this diversity, there is a wide consensus among researchers of the need for theories to form the main framework for scholarly research (Harlow, 2009).
The main discussion arising in this analysis is the importance of contributing new knowledge into existing bodies of research. This statement births another discussion regarding what constitutes “contribution” to research but still, the contribution of theory to research highlights the relationship between both concepts. Many issues define this relationship. Some of them are:
Originality and Utility
The main idea surrounding the relationship between theory, and research is based on the premise that quantitative and qualitative research always informs existing theories (albeit dimensionally). Ellis & Levy (2008) explain that the multidimensional way that theory contributes to research is hinged on originality (incremental or revelatory) and utility (scientific or practical). The contributions of research to theories on originality and utility levels explain the power of research to improve the explanatory power of theories. Through the increase of explanatory power, theories become highly relevant to the point that they can cause a paradigm shift (Ellis & Levy, 2008).
However, the original and utility contributions of research to theory occurs incrementally (building upon previous facts). Despite the nature of theoretical contributions to research (originality or utility), the contribution of quantitative research to theoretical development is easily generalized because of the multidimensional hypothesis testing. Through these multidimensional hypothesis tests, theories and research develop stronger explanatory power and predictability (Ellis & Levy, 2008).
Qualitative Contribution to Research
The qualitative contribution to research is equally significant to the quantitative contribution to research. However, compared to the quantitative contribution to research, the qualitative contribution to research is narrow in scope. Its importance is also more profound when exploring difficult topics (normally, these difficult topics are closed to external observations) (Gay, 2011).
Furthermore, complex topics (and other topics, which are difficult to quantify) easily merge with the qualitative contribution to research. Ellis & Levy (2008) explain that the qualitative research firmly grounds in social reality but some critics say that it is often idiographic. This contribution notwithstanding, Gay (2011) explains that:
“Qualitative methods have the potential to make fundamental contributions to the development of basic science in behavioral and social domains … in elucidating changes to existing constructs, the relationship among constructs, and the direction of causation between predictors and outcomes” (p. 7).
Best Practice
Kurt Lewin‘s (cited in Gay, 2011, p. 29) best assertion centers on his depiction that good theories are practical theories because they are defined by best practices. This assertion bases its validity from the fact that “good” theories base their structures on empirical research and experiences. This way, good theories depend on practical research (which forms the framework for developing best practices in theory development). In this regard, there is a conspicuous agreement among researchers of the importance of theories to not only advance the truth but also demonstrate a practical understanding (or usefulness) to scientific practice (Gay, 2011).
Therefore, if theories develop without practical usefulness, they are insufficient. Whetten (1989) explains this fact in another dimension and explains the importance of theories to “improve the current research practice of informed scholars” (p. 581). The contribution of best practice (by research studies to theories) also highlights an important function of theories (which is to expound on the practice and understanding of practitioners).
How the Instrumental View Adds to the Understanding of Political Theories
The instrumental view of theoretical construction stands in this section of the paper as an illustrative theory for improving the understanding of political theories. This view highlights an earlier section of this paper (“second view” of what constitutes a theory) and it plays an important role in political science because it supports the understanding of political theories. The instrumental view adds to the understanding of political theory because it charts the course for action in solving political issues. The most celebrated theories in political science have included important information that was present at the time of formulating the theories.
For example, Gay (2011) contends that, “facts, inferences, natural laws, and appropriate well-tested hypotheses are all part of the construction of a strong political theory” (p. 30). In this regard, political theories differentiate themselves from other forms of intuition like beliefs and guesses. Indeed, it is undoubted that political theories develop from social frictions and empirical evidence gathered from the same. However, there has been an intense debate regarding what constitutes these theories. Some researchers claim that some of these theories merely base their structures on sheer rhetoric, while others insist that such theories propagate to support an existing power structure (Morgenthau, 2004).
A different group of critics proposes that these theories advance an unknown eternal and objective order (Morgenthau, 2004). These views have questioned the credibility of political theories but the instrumental view expounds on the importance of using these views to serve an instrumental function. In this regard, the instrumental view adds to the understanding of the functions of political theories.
Controversies and Unanswered Questions Regarding Instrumentalism
As explained in this paper, instrumentalism focuses on presenting theories as a tool for understanding the environment. The instrumentalist view therefore focuses on how to analyze and predict the relationship among different social, political or economic issues as opposed to how these relationships manifest. Therefore, the objective of instrumentalism is not to explain why a phenomenon exists but rather, explain if associated results or observations fit the description of these phenomena. Despite the articulate explanation of how instrumentalism operates, there are some unanswered questions and controversies surrounding its application.
For example, Charles Sanders Peirce (a renowned researcher who introduced the concept of pragmatism) criticized the instrumentalist view by explaining that the supposition of truth is the only way that scientific progress can be achieved (Stewart, 1991). Through the supposition of reality and truth, an explanation of reality and good theories suffice. This view contradicts the instrumentalist view because the instrumentalist view does not consider unobservable objects to have a significant outcome on empirical studies, while Pierce claims that they do (Stewart, 1991). In fact, Peirce adds that unobservable objects in science are testable in practice and therefore, theory developers should consider them.
Popper (2003) (another philosopher of science also disputes assertions made by proponents of the instrumentalist view because he claims that the instrumentalist view is too mechanical. Concerning his reservations about the instrumentalist view, Popper (2003) insists that:
“Instrumentalism can be formulated as the thesis that scientific theories – the theories of the so-called pure sciences – are nothing but computational rules (or inference rules); of the same character, fundamentally, as the computation rules of the so-called applied sciences (one might even formulate it as the thesis that pure science is a misnomer, and that all science is applied). Now my reply to instrumentalism consists in showing that there are profound differences between pure theories and technological computation rules, and that instrumentalism can give a perfect description of these rules but is unable to account for the difference between them and the theories” (p. 56).
Popper (2003) also explains that another controversy surrounding instrumentalism is the concept’s failure to evaluate theories. Instead, instrumentalism implies the need for theories to receive the same treatment as models (where information provides observable predictions). Through this representation, there is a need to explain the difference between theories and observations because instrumentalism confuses the two concepts.
Popper (2003) elaborates that this confusion also stretches to the mix between non-theoretical terms and observable terms, plus the mix between non-observable terms and theoretical terms. Instrumentalism therefore contends that there is no difference between theoretical and semantic issues because it suggests, people can be able to know anything only if they are able to understand it. This view is highly contentious.
Recommendations
Understanding the nature and type of a theory is the first step to ensure the right modeling of future research processes. For researchers, theories stand as the first line of understanding scientific research. Therefore, to test and predict different variables of the research process, consultations about existing theories need to occur. Through the confirmation and understanding of these variables, the development of new theories is achievable and an improvement of scientific practice on the related subject is equally achievable. Through this understanding, it is always important to establish how our research influences theory and justifies the same contribution.
Summary
After weighing the findings, theories provide a logical explanation of how things work. Its contribution to practice is not only important for knowledge development but also in the development of scientific solutions regarding different scientific phenomena. The findings of this paper therefore demonstrate the importance of theoretical contributions to research processes (despite the complexities that occur from the same processes).
The Relationship Between Theory and Practice
Investigations into the relationship between theory and practice have gone on for a long time. This relationship influences professional training programs and how the knowledge presented in this training program is applicable in practice. Indeed, recently there have been many debates, which have strived to investigate ways to improve the integration of research and practice. Tenkasi (2011) emphasizes the importance of theories to improve practice (and most importantly, the importance of theories to improve the application of science).
To this extent, there has been a conspicuous attempt among researchers to investigate the extent that theory influences practice. This understanding highlights the importance of aligning theory with practice. This section of the paper investigates the relationship between theory and practice by exploring the relationship between theory and practice. Finally, to have a practical understanding of this relationship, the application of the international relations theory forms an integral part of the findings.
Jones (1979) explained that undoubtedly, theories play a critical role in the development of practice but recent concerns raised by practitioners (regarding the value of theories) pose serious questions regarding the development of these theories and their approach. The divide between theory and practice is a sensitive issue in the analysis of research competencies and the entire understanding of postmodernism. Zontanos (2004) views the divide between theory and practice to emanate from training programs. However, he posits that the same practitioners who voice the disconnection between theory and practice become experienced at their profession and become practical theorists (Zontanos, 2004).
Eikeland (2011) contends that practice is improvisatory and within this understanding, theories refine the understanding of practice. Similarly, critical thinking and reflective practice informs how practice shapes in different disciplines. However, because of the tardiness and irrelevance of some theories, Eikeland (2011) exhibits the importance of practitioners to undertake their own research to further bridge the gap between the two concepts. An adoption of this strategy may however have significant implications on the training, development and relationship between researchers and practitioners (Brennan, 2008).
The disconnect between theory and practice, was best represented in a research documented in the British Journal of Social Development where Brian Sheldon (the author) articulated some of the main differences between theories and practice and tried to devise ways to solve some of these challenges (Parton, 2000). Sheldon claimed that the relationship between theory and practice proved to be inconsistent and he emphasized the need for more improvements from the two ends (theory and practice) to improve their relationship (Parton, 2000).
However, at the time of his publication, Sheldon found little support for his proposal because there was a widespread negative attitude among practitioners towards scientific theories at the time (Parton, 2000). However, drawing on the comparisons between Sheldon and other researchers from other disciplines, there was a strong need to borrow some models to improve the relationship between theory and practice. This was among the first attempt to bridge theory and practice. However, based on the conspicuous differences between the scientific models in various disciplines, it was difficult to borrow (seamlessly) interdisciplinary scientific models for the improvement of the relationship between theory and practice. Since then, many researchers have developed different views regarding the relationship between theory and practice. Below are discussions of some of these views.
Views on the Relationship between Theory and Practice
Brennan (2008) views the relationship between theory and practice to be cyclic. In his definition, he explains that theory informs practice and practice tests the theory. Many researchers have had different views about the relationship between theory and practice but a majority believes practitioners fail to include published theory and their associated findings in their practice (Gray & Watson, 2011). This way, practitioners fail to utilize some of the most effective theoretical models that are useful in their practice. On one hand, practitioners emphasize the weakness of theorists to provide clear and consistent information in their theories (and this is why they fail to utilize these theories in their work) but on the other hand, theorists also emphasize the failure of practitioners to consider useful theoretical findings because of psychological, academic, or institutional reasons. This divide has created an inconsistency between theory and practice (Gray & Watson, 2011).
How Theory Informs Practice
Tenkasi (2011) contends that in the past, the role of integrating theory with practice was conceptually an exclusive responsibility of academicians. However, after the establishment of a significant divide between practice and theory, researchers were often encouraged to contextualize their findings to suit everyday application (Kasabov, 2007). One way of doing so was to use practical research in theoretical development so that it was easier for practitioners to relate with theories. This strategy traces its application alongside the goal of providing an evidence-based management structure to improve the credibility and validity of findings (Kasabov, 2007).
Apart from developing theoretical developments on practical applications, researchers were also encouraged to present their findings in an interesting and captivating way for readers to relate better with their findings (this was among the earliest ways researchers tried to bridge the gap between theory and practice). The adoption of interesting and practical presentations happened when integrating academic and professional knowledge (in academic programs such as doctorate degree programs). Here, the goal of the researcher was to empower upcoming scholars and practitioners to better integrate theory and practice.
Tenkasi (2011) introduces a new twist to the debate regarding how theory informs practice by highlighting the ability of theories to inform practice (a guide for initiating action – a concept that closely resembles the instrumentalist theory, which provides a guide to action). Tenkasi (2011) view also manifests the potential of theories to provide a rationale for decision-making (as another model which theory informs practice) (Tenkasi, 2011).
For example, in psychotherapy, the accountability of actions is highly encouraged as a way for practitioners to merge theory and practice. Nonetheless, Tenkasi (2011) explains that even though theory informs practice, the reverse can also be true because his research demonstrates that practice can also inform theory. For example, in psychotherapy, a person’s actions or behaviors may inform a practitioner’s decision regarding which theory suits the patient’s treatment plan (Henderikus, 2007). From this observation, Tenkasi (2011) claims that theory and practice share a reciprocal relationship (and from this relationship, the practitioner becomes the researcher).
Issues Involved in Translating Theory to Practice
Ideally, there should be a seamless relationship between theory and practice (characterized by consistency between the two concepts) but as Barclay (2005) observes in practice, theory and practice are seldom consistent. Issues surrounding theory and practice have obscured the goal of realizing a smooth transition between theory and practice. Barclay (2005) assertion can be contrasted with Kurt Lewin’s (cited in Gay, 2011) view, which suggests that there is nothing as practical as a good theory (however, in practice, not all theories are good theories). Many people understand the portrayal of consistency between theory and practice to be “walking the talk” (p. 29).
In other words, people are often required to align their actions with what they say (congruency manifests in this regard). According to a sociology researcher called Carl Rodgers (cited in Tenkasi, 2011), congruency is not only important in bridging the gap between theory and practice but also crucial in demonstrating the strength of human relationships. For example, people often trust honest and trustworthy people because they are the most consistent. When stated differently, reliable people are more desirable. However, the relationship between theory and practice demonstrate inconsistencies.
For example, this paper identifies that one way researchers have tried to narrow the gap between theory and practice is making their research more interesting and captivating for practitioners to better relate with their findings. However, within this framework, there have been many debates regarding the effectiveness of practitioners and scholars in bridging the gap between theory and practice.
Similarly, many debates have questioned the viability of merging the work of practitioners and scholars with academicians to integrate theory and practice (Tenkasi, 2011). In this regard, there have been several questions posed regarding what academicians can truly learn from traditional practitioners and scholars in today’s fast-paced world. Tenkasi (2011) has effectively captured these questions in his article titled, Integrating Theory to inform Practice
Another issue surrounding the application of theories and practice is the failure for researchers to incorporate practical data in theoretical developments. Llewelyn (2003) explains that if people tend to follow theories without incorporating practical data (regarding the same theory) there is going to be a significant discrepancy in the conversion of theory to practice. This discrepancy arises because there is insufficient awareness created when merging theories and practice in this regard.
When stated differently, Llewelyn (2003) explains the potential to perceive theories as maps for offering direction, but these maps do not define the territory in their own right. Therefore, there is a strong need to compare internal representations of theories with external motivations because both concepts differ.
Another issue involved in translating theory to practice lies in the failure to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the theories in practice. Bourne (2008) explains that it is possible to compare theories with lenses, which have their strong and weak points. The presence of weaknesses implies that there are specific areas of distortion, which may inhibit the direct application of these theories in practice. Nonetheless, the recognition of theoretical strengths and weaknesses has brought a new movement, which skews towards encouraging integrative theoretical developments. This movement has also birthed the multi-theoretical perception of practical issues facing different disciplines.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that a theoretical orientation always provides the same desired practical alignment. Indeed, Brownlie & Svensson (2008) explain the differences professionals with the same theoretical orientations have shown in practice. Similarly, Brownlie & Svensson (2008) observes the similarity of practice, which professionals with different theoretical backgrounds show. Therefore, there is no direct relationship between theoretical developments and practical applications. Instead, theoretical developments are subject to individual interpretations, which may cause significant differences in practical application.
Description and Current View of the International Relations Theory
To understand the relationship between theory and practice, this section of the paper explores the application of the international relations theory. The international relations theory is one theory, which has been widely used in political science. Its use has been widely accepted by many scholars because the theory provides a conceptual framework for analyzing how different countries relate. Some people have used the international relations theory poetically, to refer to a pair of colored glasses, which only allow the wearer to consider important features in international relations (which are crucial to the theory) (Ghosh, 1995). The international relations theory comprises three main branches: realism, liberalism and constructivism (but realism and liberalism are the most prevalent).
The realist view is the most dominant international relations view among all other views (liberalist and constructivist). The realist view differentiates itself from the liberalist and constructivist view by acknowledging the role of state actors as the most important determinants of world politics (Chen, 2011). This view bases its philosophies on a state-centric system, which view nations as billiard balls that control world politics. The realist view bases its ideologies on a few assumptions that perceive nation-states as unitary actors with tremendous geographic dominance (giving them the power to control world politics). The realist view also assumes that nation-states are always competing against one another (Osuagwu, 2008).
As opposed to the realist view, the liberalist view considers the view of non-state actors in international politics. Non-state actors may include non-governmental organizations, corporations (and the likes). The liberalist view also emphasizes those preferential views among state actors are the single-most influential tools for changing world politics (as opposed to the power or capability of nation-states in realizing the same results). According to the liberal view, dominant cultural, economic, and political factors (which may vary state preferences when interacting in the world stage) affect the preferences of nation-states.
Finally, the constructivist view bases its ideals on a systematic structure, which finds its footing in ideas that affect interests and identities (Huang, 2012). The constructivist view also explores how these interests are later, advocated to produce political structures that support the initial ideas that created them (Huang, 2012). The main tenet of the constructivist view describes, “collective values, culture, social identities and persuasive ideas” (Duvall & Varadarajan, 2003, p. 75), which create a social construction of influence in world politics. The application of the constructivist view traces its support from the past failure of existing branches of the international relations theory to describe the outcome of the cold war.
Comprehensively, the current view of the international relations theory hinges on explaining today’s power structures (Duvall & Varadarajan, 2003, p. 75). This theory also bases its understanding in the comprehension of various perspectives that affect how nations relate. The understanding of the world order and the challenges of existing administrative frameworks (such as authoritarian rule, democratic governance and the likes) also describe the international relations theory.
The international relations theory therefore explains the effect of power structures on people (Duvall & Varadarajan, 2003, p. 75). Its importance does not only remain confined within the theoretical understanding of power structures because its application stretches to its ability to motivate people and initiative political actions to confront existing power relations.
However, people who practice foreign policies sometimes dismiss the international relations theory because they see a big difference or lack of understanding between the way the international relations theory is developed and the real-world application of foreign policies (Duvall & Varadarajan, 2003). This divide highlights the wide difference between theory and practice but it also expresses the frustration practitioners experience when they implement theoretical contributions. Duvall & Varadarajan (2003) explains that despite the continual ignorance of international theory application, foreign policy practitioners still have to rely on some theoretical models to inform their decision-making processes.
Concerning this observation, Duvall & Varadarajan (2003) explain that “everyone uses theories-whether they know it or not-and disagreements about policy usually rest on more fundamental disagreements about the basic forces that shape international outcomes” (p. 198). Nonetheless, from the objection of international theories (by some researchers), the divide between the abstract world of theory and the real-world applications of these theories persist.
Application of International Relations Theory to Political Science
This paper emphasizes the need for theories to build on existing literature and improve existing bodies of knowledge. The international relations theory has been able to do so effectively. Moreover, the international relations theory has been able to re-invent itself and remain relevant in solving current world problems. Its ability to do so emphasizes the importance of theories to relate to practice (as explained in part one of this paper). Even though there have been some resistance from certain foreign policy practitioners to embrace the international relations theory, there is a significant application of the theory in explaining some of the world’s most notable political problems.
In addition, the application of the international relations theory emphasizes another important function of theories, which is to predict future events. As will be explained in subsequent paragraphs of this paper, the international relations theory predicts the behavior of international world powers (viz-a-viz foreseen or unforeseen forces) which influence global dynamics of world politics.
For example, the international relations theory explains today’s global world power structures (like the new world order, which is characterized by the growing dominance of emerging world powers such as China) and how their influence affects the current power structure in world politics. For example, the international relations theory demonstrates how emerging world powers could rise to power, in a potentially dangerous way.
More so, this discussion arises because emerging economies such as China or Iran do not embrace democratic governance and such uniqueness threatens the dominance of existing democracies in world politics. The international relations theory also explores if China will demand a different treatment in the world stage as it interacts with other global world powers, or if it will modify its behavior to suit the conventional world political system. The international relations theory also explains the dominance of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in world politics and its subsequent impact in influencing global policies.
Indeed, the international relations theory (through the realist view) shows that NATO’s expansion in world politics is a way to increase the dominance of western influence beyond the traditional borders of the US. This theory also demonstrates that NATOs expansion was a way to increase the dominance of western influence in world politics at a period of Russian expansion. Therefore, the international relations theory would demonstrate that the expansion of NATO’s influence would evoke protest from Russia. Such issues affect our present-day understanding of world politics and it demonstrates the usefulness of the international relations theory in political science.
Evaluating the Application of International Relations Theory
Widely, the application of the international relations theory denotes the existing relationships existing among many states today. Its application explores the underlying bonds among these relationships and it gives a comprehensive insight into the outcomes of these relationships. The above application of the international relations theory to explain the existence of world bodies like NATO is premised on a factual understanding of the theory because the international relations theory defines such unions as a transnational bond that is held together by national interests (this is the true picture characterizing NATO’s existence) (Huang, 2012).
Other spheres of political science that the international relations theory applies base their philosophies on a factual representation of the theory. For example, the international relations theory explains the development of foreign policies in many nations today because the theory provides a conceptual framework for the development of these policies. Through the understanding of international relations theory, we can therefore compare and contrast the differences and similarities between the foreign policies of different world powers (and why this is so). The sheer numbers of sub-theories that explain the international relations theory outline the expansive scope of the theory (Ellis & Levy, 2008).
Through this expansive scope, the international relations theory explains many political issues – especially concerning international collaboration in security, finance, fighting terrorism (and similar global concerns). The application of the international relations theory (in the context of the examples made in this paper) therefore does not go beyond the scope of the paper. Instead, the examples highlighted in this paper show a precise link between the theory and practice.
Recommendations
Based on the existing gap between theory and practice, it is crucial for researchers to understand that good theories premise on facts, which also stem from real practice (similarly, good practice bases its philosophies on sound theories). Researchers should therefore understand that theory and practice are interdependent.
Therefore, when trying to merge theory and practice, the relationship between both concepts (theory and practice) should demonstrate accuracy, natural relation and easy communication.
Summary
The relationship between theory and practice has been elusive for most researchers and practitioners. Indeed, this section of the paper shows different views regarding why this disconnect exists. However, ideally, theories should be able to build on practice and practice should similarly inform these theories. Several ideas surface in this paper to show how researchers can narrow the divide between theory and practice and most of these strategies can be useful for researchers who wish to improve their practice.
Some of these strategies include presenting theoretical findings in attractive ways so practitioners can find them appealing, using practical data to inform the theories and establishing congruence and consistency between theory and practice. To improve the usability of our research findings, researchers should therefore strive to use the above tools to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
References
Barclay, L. (2005). Following in the footsteps of Mary Parker Follett: Exploring how insights from the past can advance organizational justice theory and research. Management Decision, 43(5), 740 – 760.
Bourne, L. (2008). Advancing theory and practice for successful implementation of stakeholder management in organisations. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 587 – 601.
Brennan, R. (2008). Theory and practice across disciplines: implications for the field of management. European Business Review, 20(6), 515 – 528.
Brownlie, D. & Svensson, G. (2008). Management theory and practice: bridging the gap through multidisciplinary lenses. European Business Review, 20(6), 461 – 470.
Chen, J. (2011). Political resources, business model and headquarters location of private enterprises. Nankai Business Review International, 2(2), 172 – 194.
Cozby, P. (2009). Methods in behavioral research. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
Duvall, D. & Varadarajan, L. (2003). On the practical significance of critical international relations theory. Asian Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 75-88.
Ellis, T. & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 17-33.
Eikeland, O. (2011). Turning practically: broadening the horizon. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(2), 164 – 174.
Ellis, T. & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 17-33.
Gay, B. (2011). Theory Building and Paradigms: A Primer on the Nuances of Theory Construction. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(2), 24-29.
Gay, B. & Weaver, S. (2011). Theory Building and Paradigms: A Primer on the Nuances of Theory Construction. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(2), 24-30.
Gelso, C. (2006). Applying theories to research: The interplay of theory and research in science (In F.T. Leong & J.T. Austin The psychology research handbook). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ghosh, B. (1995). The Ontology of Islamic Political Economy: A Metatheoretic Analysis. Humanomics, 11(3), 13 – 33.
Grant, R. (2002). Political Theory, Political Science, and Politics. Political Theory, 30(4), 577-595.
Gray, D. & Watson, S. (2011). Spanning the HRD academic-practitioner divide: bridging the gap through mode 2 research. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(3), 247 – 263.
Harlow, E. (2009). Contribution, theoretical. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. New York: Sage.
Henderikus S. (2010). Theory (Encyclopedia of Research Design). New York: SAGE Publications.
Henderikus, S. (2007). Theoretical psychology. The International Handbook of Psychology. London: SAGE Publications.
Huang, J. (2012). Implement the ECFA: Prospects of a bilateral investment agreement between Mainland China and Taiwan. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 5(2), 127 – 156.
Jay, S. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Jones, M. (1979). Training Practices and Learning Theories. Journal of European Industrial Training, 3(7), 22 – 25.
Kasabov, E. (2007). Towards a contingent, empirically validated, and power cognisant relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 94 – 120.
Kaufman, A. (1954). The nature and function of political theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 51(1), 5.
Kerlinger, R. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Llewelyn, S. (2003). What counts as “theory” in qualitative management and accounting research? Introducing five levels of theorizing. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 662 – 708.
Morgenthau, H. (2004). Political Theory And International Affairs: Hans J. Morgenthau On Aristotle’s The Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Osuagwu, L. (2008). Political marketing: conceptualisation, dimensions and research agenda. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(7), 793 – 810.
Parton, N. (2000). Some thoughts on the Relationship Between theory and Practice in and for Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 449-463.
Popper, K. (2003). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Stam, H. (2007). Theoretical psychology. The International Handbook of Psychology. New York: SAGE Publications.
Stam, H. (2010). Theory. Encyclopedia of Research Design. New York: SAGE Publications.
Stewart, K. (1991). Social and Economic Aspects of Peirce’s Conception of Science. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 27(4), 501–526.
Sutton, R. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. ASQ, 40, 371-384.
Tenkasi, R. (2011). Integrating theory to Inform practice. London: Berret-Koehler.
Wacker, J. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361–385.
Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
Zontanos, G. (2004). Relationships, marketing and small business: an exploration of links in theory and practice. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 7(3), 228 – 236.