Most applied disciplines are attempting to make significant advancements in articulating the theoretical foundation of their fields of study. The theory discussions and theory research in most applied disciplines are not held together in a manner that allows interpretation and integration. This article presents a holistic theory framework for applied disciplines to help scholars and practitioners create and critique the theory of an applied discipline as well as the contributing, core, useful, novel, and irrelevant theory components within it. Each of the six components in the framework are described and illustrated through relevant theory examples. The role that each component plays in advancing the theory and practice in an applied discipline is also examined.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation . Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496—515.
2.
Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. (1999). Empirical research in IS: The practice of relevance . MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3—16.
3.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate . New York: The Carnegie Foundation .
4.
Chermack, T. J., & Burt, G. (Eds.). (in press). Scenario planning: HRD's strategic learning tool. Advances in Developing Human Resources.
5.
Cohen, B.P. (1991). Developing sociological knowledge: Theory and method, second edition. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
6.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany good to great. Boulder, CO: Jim Collins.
7.
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building: A practical guide to the construction and testing of theoretical models. New York: Free Press.
8.
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don't automate, obliterate . Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104—112.
9.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper.
10.
Hunt, S.D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods. European Journal of Marketing,28(3), 13—25.
11.
Jacobs, R.L. (1997). HRD partnerships for integrating research and practice. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 47—61). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
12.
Korte, R. (unpublished manuscript). Formulating a theoretical base for a discipline . St. Paul, MN.
13.
Lee, M. ( 2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 327—341.
14.
Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.). (1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Lynham. S. A. (2000). The development of a theory of responsible leadership for performance. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Human Resource Development Research Center.
16.
Lynham, S.A. (2002a). Theory building in applied disciplines: Advances in developing human resources, 4(3).
17.
Lynham, S.A. (2002b). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines: Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 4(3), 221—241.
18.
McLean, G.N. (1998). HRD: A three-legged stool, an octopus, or a centipede ? Human Resource Development International, 1(4), 375—377.
19.
McLean, G.N. & McLean. L. (2001). If we can't define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313—326.
20.
Moody, D.L. (2000). Building links between IS research and professional practice: Improving relevance and impact of IS research. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 351—360). Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
21.
Osigweh, C.A.B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science . Academy of Management Review, 14(4) 579—594.
22.
Phillips, P.A. (1998). Disseminating and applying best evidence. Medical Journal of Australia, 168, 260—261.
23.
Swanson, R.A. (1988). Research and development (and other life and death matters). Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(1), 69—82.
24.
Swanson, R.A. (1993). Scientific management is a Sunday school picnic compared to reengineering. Human Resource Development Quarterly , 4(3), 219—221.
25.
Swanson, R.A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 299—312.
26.
Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F. (Eds.). (1997). Human resource development research handbook. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
27.
Swanson. R. A. & Holton, E.F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
28.
Torraco, R.J. (1994). The development and validation of a theory of work analysis. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Human Resource Development Research Center.
29.
Torraco, R.J. (1997). Theory-building research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 114—137). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
30.
Torraco, R.J. (2005). Theory development research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry (pp. 351—374). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
31.
Van deVen, A.H. (1999). The buzzing, booming, confusing world of organization and management theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 118—125.
32.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: Creating knowledge for science and practice. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
34.
Weick, K.E. (1995). That theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly,40(3), 385—390.
