The term theory relates to a well-substantiated rationale of a research outcome which is established on a body of repeatedly confirmed facts through experiments and observations (Creswell & Plano, 2018). Theories often define, predict, proposes, assumes, and explains the validity of a research outcome. Theories often allow the researcher to establish links amid the concrete and the abstract, the empirical and the theoretical, and between the observational statements and thought statements. Theories ought to meet additional requirements, for instance, the capacity to establish falsifiable predictions with constant accuracy across an extensive field of scientific inquiry and the generation of strong evidence in support of the theory from various autonomous sources (consilience). A hypothesis, on the other hand, relates to a tentative statement aimed at predicting the relationship amid two or more variables; it is a discrete testable prediction of the expected research outcome (Grix, 2010). The paper will delineate the primary differences amid the four forms of research theories, present the similarities and differences between a hypothesis and a theory, and present a vivid explanation of the term variable and delineate the significant features of theoretical schemes.
There are four major types of research theories: inductive, axiomatic, grounded, and deductive research theories (Willis, 2007). Deductive theorizing research approach involves the development of an assumption based on the pre-existing theories and creating a research plan aimed at testing the assumption. Deductive theorizing involves the deduction of the research outcome from the premises. When using a deductive theorizing approach in a research project, the researcher often establishes a set of hypotheses that ought to be tested, and by employing the relevant methodology, test the hypotheses. If the deductive theorizing’s premises are acknowledged, then the conclusion should be readily accepted. In deductive theorizing approaches, the components of the outcome are implicitly determined in the premises, thereby, making the argument non-implicative. A conclusion has to be deduced regardless of the addition of a new premise to the argument. A deductive argument is either invalid or valid and there is no extent of validity and therefore, there is no decision or choice in implementing such an argument, and no logic is needed in obtaining the outcome and conclusion. Deductive theorizing involves the studying and testing of a particular theory to determine its useful application under the intended circumstances (Willis, 2007). Deductive theorizing follows the path of logic precisely. Argumentation often commences with a theory, and it leads to the establishment of a new assumption. The assumption is then tested by comparing it with the observations. The assumption may be rejected or accepted.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Inductive theorizing often involves the generalization of specific conclusions and observations. In inductive theorizing, one can generalize the inference to all or groupings of similar situations and conditions after the correct selection of some observations (Tuckman & Harper, 2018). The generalizations ought to be tested, and some may be rejected or verified. Principles derived from inductive theories are often theoretically falsifiable. During the induction procedure, the researcher should record their observations without biases and prejudgments. The observations often establish a basis which enhances the development of laws and theories that constitute the scientific knowledge. Researchers often believe that one can coherently generalize the observations into inclusive and general rules and ratify and verify the scientific assumptions. Inductive theories are usually constructed at the end of the study and as an outcome of the observations. Inductive theorizing incorporates the analysis of patterns based on the researcher's observations and the development of theories for the respective patterns via hypothesis. In inductive theorizing, theories are not usually applied at the beginning of the study, and this gives the researcher complete freedom when ascertaining the course of the study. The researcher usually uses the observations to develop an abstract or delineate the circumstances under study.
Grounded theory relates to a theory developed through the systematic procedure that incorporates the methodic data gathering and analysis process (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2008). The grounded theory process usually functions inductively, contrary to the hypothetico-deductive strategy. Grounded theory involves the systematic generation of theories from data typified by deductive and inductive reasoning with the goal of formulating hypotheses based on conceptual propositions. Grounded research theory is also aimed at discovering the participants' primary concern and how they continuously attempt to resolve it. The grounded theory procedure is aimed at conceptualizing the prevailing conditions using empirical research. During the application of the grounded theory process, researchers do not always come up with the hypotheses in advance mainly because preconceived hypotheses result in theories that are ungrounded from the information. The ground theory incorporates the collection of data, text coding and theorizing, memoing and theorizing, and the integration, writing, and refining of theories.
An axiomatic theory relates to a theory typified by a self-evident premise, and thus, it is likely to be recognized as true without controversies and empirical confirmation (Creswell & Plano, 2018). The axiomatic theory is a statement of relations amid conceptualizations within a set of boundary constraints and assumptions where the relations are either axioms or are obtained from axioms. The axiomatic theorizing method involves the generation of a theory with specified rules by rational inferences from particular basic propositions (axioms).
Deductive theories are more valid than other research theories because high reliability or certainty levels typify them. Deductively valid arguments often guarantee the truth of the inference or conclusion since their conclusions are contained within their premises. A deductive conclusion is also associated with high accuracy levels since there is no addition of new information (Tashakkori & Teddle, 2008). Although inductive theories are useful in instances where the provided information is incomplete, its conclusions are not guaranteed, it assumes the equality of nature, and it depends on observation during data collection. Researcher-induced biases may also typify grounded theories.
A theory is a set of interrelated concepts (constructs), propositions and definitions that presents a methodic or systematic perception of phenomena by identifying the relations amid variables with the aim of elucidating and predicting phenomena (Grix, 2010). Theories often aid in organizing the existing body of knowledge in specific domains, explain the outcome of research studies, predict subsequent phenomena, and enable one to control the occurrence of various phenomena. A hypothesis, on the other hand, relates to a tentative statement aimed at predicting the relationship amid two or more variables; it is a discrete testable prediction of the expected research outcome. Secondly, a hypothesis is usually based on limited data whereas; a theory is generally found in a vast data range. Thirdly, hypotheses are usually not scientifically proven or tested. Theories, on the other hand, are scientifically tested and proven and based on extensive scientific consensus. Fourthly, hypotheses rely on possibilities or projections whereas, theories rely on verification and evidence. Fifthly, the results of a hypothesis are usually uncertain whereas, the outcome of a specific theory is usually certain. Sixthly, theories are usually formulated through hypotheses. Hypotheses, on the other hand, are based on the outcome of a theory. Lastly, theories and hypotheses are both falsifiable and testable.
Variables related to any factor, condition, or trait typified by a different quality or quantity. There are two primary forms of variables: the independent variable and the dependent variable (Tuckman & Harper, 2018). Dependent variables relate to the measured component during an experiment; it is usually impacted in the course of the experiment, and it is dependent on the independent variable. Independent variables, on the other hand, relate to variables that can be manipulated by the researcher during a particular study. Dependent and independent variables often act as drivers of the research procedure thereby, enabling the researcher to carry out his studies with precision and caution. Independent and dependent variables are also significant in the sense that they aid in determining the presumed effects and presumed causes in a study. Even though not all variables are casual-related, the notion of effect and cause can help in clarifying the idea of dependence and independence in the dependent and independent variable respectively.
In conclusion, theories represent an integrated body of definitions, assumptions, and propositions that aid in elucidating and predicting relations amid two or more variables. Hypotheses, on the other hand, relate to tentative statements aimed at predicting the relationship amid two or more variables. There are various similarities and differences between a theory and a hypothesis. There are four major types of research theories: inductive, axiomatic, grounded, and deductive research theories. There are two major forms of variables: independent variable and dependent variable.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Sage Publications
Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2008). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences . London: Sage.
Tuckman, B. W., & Harper, B. E. (2018). Conducting educational research . Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
