Theoretical Foundation
1.1 Definition
The term “Theoretical Foundation” has its origin from the Term “THEORY”
So the question that arise herein is,
One: What is theoretical foundation?
Two: What is Theory?
Allow me to answer these two questions in a progressive manner
1.2Theoretical Foundation
Just like any other term in research, the term theoretical foundation has many definitions. Let me review some of them because in this definition, the term FOUNDATION has been incorporated and foundations are key in real life situations
Definition 1: Theoretical foundation is a formal, peer-reviewed theoretical model (or models) that can be used to explain the issue that is driving your research. ( https://mydissertationeditor.com/theoretical-foundation/)
Definition 2: Theoretical foundations of a subject matter is the general and specific scientific theories that explain the ultimate origins of that matter in terms of evolution (Wikipedia-paraphrased definition)
Definition 3: Theoretical foundation is a collection of interrelated concepts, like a theory but not necessarily so well worked-out. (http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements.htm paraphrased definition)
As much as I agree with these definitions, I am not comfortable at all. Look at this TWO word definition now
Theoretical Foundation is Foundation of Theory
Two words; Foundation and Theory
I know you expected a long ten word religious definition to understand what the term theoretical foundation implies. Nevertheless, let me guide you further so that by the time you think of writing your Masters or Doctoral dissertation or writing a proposal for funding, you will be better placed and hence start with the right footing.
Foundation
2.1 Introduction
A foundation can normally be defined as;
- A basis (such as a tenet, principle, or axiom) upon which something stands or is supported
- An underlying base or support especially: the whole masonry substructure of a building
- A body or ground upon which something is built up or overlaid
(All from Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
From these definitional highlights, a foundation is the structural physical matter laid underneath to hold together the tangible building, whether a simple house, bungalow, or a storey building like skyscrapers like those of Dubai.
When experts such as Structural and Architectural engineers approve the steadfastness of the FOUNDATION, we know this is a sure foundation, unbreakable/shatterproof, unwavering, long lasting and permanent.
With EXPERT’S Approval of a Building
We can comfortably Trade in Concepts from the building
We can comfortably Harness Projects in the building
We can comfortably Earn Profits from the building
We can comfortably Open the Economy from the building
We can comfortably Yield Social-Economic Benefits from the building
From the above analogy, if a physical foundation is established on THEORY, it is beneficial.
So, a foundation is a THEORY. NOTE THIS; If a physical building has to stand the test of time the foundation should and must be laid as per the theoretical guidelines of the experts such as Structural and Architectural engineers. That is, the Way, How, Where, When and Why of the parts or components work with each other is as per the experts. That is as per their theory (see logic).
Before I take you to the second term, let me ask you a fascinating question?
Why do physical buildings Collapse?
Answer; They lack experts’ THEORY
Theory
3.1Definition
Now what is a theory?
Again I will review some definitions pertaining this matter and then as a team, that is you and I, we agree which is the most suitable one especially on research matters.
Now, since this is the genesis of the fall of Man, not even researchers, tutors or academicians, I have critically reviewed seven definitions on THEORY as per diverse authors
Definition 1: A Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Definition 2: A Theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often unfounded (All from Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Definition 3: A theory is a rational or reasoning or logical type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking (Wikipedia)
Definition 4: A theory is a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation (Cambridge Dictionary)
Definition 5: A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. (UK Dictionary)
Definition 6: A theory is a an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something about life or the world, especially an idea that has not yet been proved to be true (Longman)
Definition 7: A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Out of all those definitions, I wish to buy some leaves and leave others.
From these definitions; The bottom line is that,
A theory is an idea, general principle, plausible principle, logical, reasoning and or rational facts of a phenomenon.
In other words, a theory is the logical way of relating of two or more characteristics or traits of the subject matter in question in its Natural and Physical Phenomenon (Source: Accountingnest.com website, 2021).
Therefore;
A THEORY is the natural, observable, logical, realistic and practical working or relation of two or more characteristics or behavior of a particular subject matter whether of a natural person or otherwise. This is the Viewpoint on Theory!
Natural Viewpoint
5.1 Introduction
A theory has to be looked at from the eye lenses of natural perspective. You cannot beat nature. For example, naturally, a dog bites man, but man cannot bite a dog. Although it is not good news that so and so has been bitten by a dog, so equally it is not natural for man to bite a dog. This is “Abnormal”. In other words, research should be pegged on the normal mode and this is the reason why we wish the researcher to collect data which is characterized by normal distribution indicators.
5.1.1 Observable Viewpoint
A theory has to be on characteristics that are physically observed. Just like nature, we see, we feel and we touch. A theory entails physical/natural workings of the characteristics of concern. We do not work from the blues. The aspect of carrying out an observation(s) by the researcher is necessary for us to describe a theory
5.1.2 Logical Viewpoint
A theory is logical or reasonable, plausible or rational. What do I mean by this, a theory makes sense, it’s realistic or attainable. When a dog bites a man, its sensible. That’s why the dog does the act of biting so naturally and so furiously to achieve some results of kind. Such as creating its own defense. But the reverse is madness, not logical or it is unrealistic.
NB: Since a theory is logic, the same characteristics may relate or interact with each other in a logical manner although in dissimilar ways if put in different set ups such as locality. But we cannot have a case where by the same characteristics relating or interacting with each other in a logical manner in the same set ups such as locality if we consider their reversed roles.
5.1.3 Realistic Viewpoint
A theory is a real-life perspective. It is realistic and attainable. If bitten by a dog, you are truly bitten. But if you bite a dog, you have bitten the dog But…….
5.1.4 Practical Viewpoint
A theory is practical. What is doable? A theory is what can literally work for you. This is the catching point. We may tell many stories by defining what a theory is by using long persuasive and complexity of words to define the term theory. But when it comes to achieving the results of what we are proposing, we get stuck. We do not know how to get the results.
A theory is Practical. This is Where the Rubber Meets the Road.
In a “NUTSHELL”
5.2 What Theory is, and What Theory is NOT?
I will demonstrate What Theory is and What Theory is NOT by use of two scenario for each case
THEORY…
5.2.1 Scenario One:
I take a small stone, throw it Up-it falls down to the ground.
I take a big stone, throw it Up-it falls down to the ground.
I take a piece of wood, throw it Up-it falls down to the ground.
I take a book, throw it Up-it falls down to the ground.
In a Nutshell-This is referred to as the THEORY OF LAW OF GRAVITY
What does it state?
All Objects, Regardless of Size or Shape or Mass (Or Weight) Will Free Fall at the Same Rate; A Ball Will Fall at the Same Rate as Stone.
5.2.2 Scenario Two
I increase the price of a normal good (other factors constant) demand decrease
I now do the opposite
I decrease the price of a normal good (other factors constant) demand increase
In a Nutshell-This is referred to as the THEORY OF DEMAND
What does it state?
The Higher the Price of a Product is, (other factors constant), the Lesser the Demand level
THEORY is NOT…
The Definitional statement made by diverse authors or dictionary
Descriptive statement made by diverse authors or dictionary
Explanatory statement made by diverse authors or dictionary
Conceptual statement made by diverse authors or dictionary
Empirical statement made by diverse authors or dictionary
Let wrap-up this matter by presenting to you my personal experience in academia by presenting what I call COMMON STORY WITH PEOPLE
In my undergraduate level and I know this is also common with you, we used to have lecturers of all walks of life, allow me say so. This is because, some were detailed in their lecturing and so we applauded them. But others seemed to have done a shoddy job and as students we felt shortchanged. Why? Because they taught us or gave lecturers dominated by handouts. This used to be our common story and common comments.
We used to say…..“The lecturer has not taught us anything, he gave us notes in HANDOUT form-He was too THEORETICAL!”
OR
Let me put it this way…..this lecturer dictated us notes for one HOUR and walked out without explaining. We all used to agree that, there was no learning for he/she gave us THEORY.
In other words….he/she dictated much notes
Conclusion
In conclusion, Theory is not word. Theory is what work
Parting Shot………..
“You Give me THEORY, you will Have Given me Success”
Theoretical Foundation Components- Watermark Model
6.1 Introduction
There is always a common question amongst research students even professional researchers as at what point should one incorporate theoretical foundation in a research study?
Let me say this….
I have listened to hot debates on this subject matter in many Fora, even in postgraduate masters and Doctoral defenses but most of the arguments are still dissatisfying by all standards.
Look at these suggestions by diverse scholars (this is for explanation purposes);
- Some scholars say argue that, theoretical review (in quotes) should be in chapter two of literature review
- Some say it depends on the purpose of the proposal-whether for academic or for funding or even for publishing
- Some say it depends on the individual University proposal or academic FORMAT used
- Some say it depends on the individual publishing Journal proposal or academic FORMAT used
- Some say it’s optional to include the theoretical foundation aspect or leave it out from the thesis or project document
- Others say theoretical foundation is the same as theoretical review
Just to mention but a few
From the aforementioned debate, one more question is building up in our minds, what is the difference between “Theoretical Foundation” and “Theoretical Review?”.
To answer the TWO questions, allow me to take you through my Pyramid model (Watermark) of the components of theoretical foundation.
Question one: “Where should one put (format) the aspect of Theoretical Foundation in the Dissertation or Proposal?”
Answer: EVERYWHERE!
Everywhere means theoretical foundation is a concept that should be incorporated on every aspect of your research or research thesis/project. In other words, all aspects of the research, be it;
Research topic of your study
Chapter one-on background of your study, specific objectives, research hypotheses and significance of your study
Chapter two of your study: Literature Review; that is theoretical review (i.e., interrogation of theories underpinning your study), empirical review, conceptual framework
Chapter three: Research Methodology; that is research philosophy, research design, population and matters of sampling and data collection and data analysis, empirical formulation.
Chapter four; research hypotheses testing, research findings and interpretation.
Chapter five; discussions of the research findings and conclusions, addition of new knowledge, recommendations and suggestions for further areas of research to other researchers.
Therefore, we will not be wrong to say “Theoretical Foundation should be Everywhere Intense-i.e., The “Watermark Analogy” I have devised for your better understanding. That is, if you look behind or at the background of this article, there is watermark on each page. So, in the same manner, I am saying that when writing a project or thesis, the issue of theoretical foundation has nothing to do with a university proposal format it used but theoretical foundation concept should reflect in the topic of your study and also in each of your chapter 1-5. In other words, my theoretical foundation pyramid model as indicated in Figure 1.1 above applies.
General Theoretical Foundation Guideline On Research Writing
7.1 Introduction
When writing a project or thesis, the aspect of theoretical foundation should be in the whole document. The following general guide gives evidence that the concept under investigation in any study should entail this foundation as explained in the following FIVE steps.
7.1.1 STEP 1: THEORY
Research starts with a Theory
Using a theory statement(s), we show or demonstrate the plausibility or logical scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena in superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable manner.
To identify the most suitable theory that underpin your study or concept, you should consider past similar literature to your area of study and interrogate the diverse theories already in existence. This helps you to build up theoretical knowledge gaps to be filled by your study. at this point or step, you need to take note of the theories being used in every journal article or text book that you find relevant to your topic. Once you’ve read the secondary research, trace the theory back to its original publication, paying attention to pertinent historical context. Determine that specific theory’s significance to your work for you to be able to move forward.
CAUTION
Theories identified should always support or underpin a Concept but not a Variable. The argument on whether a theory should underpin a variable or a concept has raised a hot debate which is controversial amongst scholars. To clarify this matter once and for all, look at it this way;
A theory is the working or a logical relationship of two or more characteristics or behavior of the subject matter or the unit of analysis. So at least two variables must be considered and how they relate to one another.
Hence, a THEORY is the practical, logical observable behavior of the two or more variables. Then this implies that in this case you cannot consider behavior of the unit of analysis as explained by a single variable chosen on a stand-Alone basis. Therefore, to build up a thesis or project, the following general theoretical foundation guidelines should be followed as per the steps below;
Illustration One
Let us consider a case of theory of demand. So,
“When the Price increase-the Quantity Demanded Decreases and when the Price Decrease-the Quantity Demanded Increases”
The above relationship of the two variables (i.e., price and demand level) represent DEMAND THEORY which is observable (i.e., what can physically be seen or witnessed), logical, practical The HOW of the two variables representing different characteristics of the unit of analysis (Consumer) correlate within him or her.
Do not confuse this relationship with the term;
“Theory of Demand Statement”;
It states that when the Price (Independent Variable) increase, Quantity demanded (Dependent Variable) of the product decreases (Holding other factors Ceteris Paribas).
NB1: Therefore, the theory part of the study (i.e., theory (or theories) used) should portray the theoretical foundations of the concept under consideration.
7.1.2 STEP 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
THEORY also underpin the conceptual framework perspective
Conceptual framework (i.e., theory) is the CONCEPT being studied and can be represented in a summative manner using diagrammatic method. In other words, it is a diagrammatic representation of the relationship between two or more variables.
This is presented as follows;
Where;
IV is the independent variable
DV is the dependent variable
NOTE: The main concept here is the relationship between the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent Variable (DV)
NB1: That the minor concepts (but not inferior) here is the relationship between
IV1 and the DV
IV2 and the DV
IV3 and the DV
IV4 and the DV
NB2: That the minor concepts should be in congruent or harmony with the main concept
NB3: The researcher needs then to identify FOUR corresponding THEORIES that support the FOUR corresponding minor concepts
Illustration Two
If we again relax the assumption of considering one factor “Price of the product” in the case of Demand Theory aforementioned and incorporate more factors that determine demand of a product, such as
Price of the product
Consumer’s income,
Consumer’s taste and preference and
Price of other related products,
then the conceptual framework will be diagrammatically represented as follows;
Where;
DV is the Quantity Demanded (D)
IV1 is Price of the product
IV2 is Consumer’s income
IV3 is Consumer’s tastes & preferences
IV4 is Price of related products
Then, the diagrammatic conceptual framework will be as shown below
NB2: Therefore, the conceptual framework section of the study (i.e., concept used) should portray the theoretical foundations of the concept under consideration. In other words, it is a THEORY.
7.1.3 STEP 3: EMPIRICAL MODEL
A THEORY also underpins the conceptual framework perspective
Empirical model is the graphical, or tabular or mathematical representation of the CONCEPT being studied. In other words, and most of the times is a mathematical representation of the relationship between two or more variables.
This is presented as follows;
General Model DV=f(IV)
Specific Model DV=ß0 + ß1X1 + ß2X2+ ß3X3 + ß4X4
Where;
X1 to X4 is the independent variables
DV is the dependent variable
NOTE: The main empirical model here is the relationship between the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent Variable (DV)
NB1: That the minor empirical model (but not inferior) here is the relationship between
DV=ß0 + ß1X1
DV=ß0 + ß2X2
DV=ß0 + ß3X3
DV=ß0 +ß4X4
NB2: That the minor empirical models should be in congruent or harmony with the main concept
NB3: Now the same FOUR corresponding THEORIES that support the FOUR corresponding minor concepts should also be in support of the empirical models
Illustration Three
If we again relax the assumption of considering one factor “Price of the product” in the case of Demand Theory aforementioned and incorporate more factors that determine demand of a product, such as
Price of the product
Consumer’s income,
Consumer’s tastes and preferences and
price of other related products
then the Empirical model will be represented as follows
Let
P is Price of the product
CI is Consumers’ income
CT is Consumers’ tastes
P0 is Price of related products
DV is the Quantity Demanded
Then, the empirical model will be as shown below
DV=ß0 - ß1P + ß2CI- ß3CT + ß4P0
NB3: Therefore, the empirical model section of the study (i.e., mathematical, graphical or tabular expression used) should portray the theoretical foundations of the concept under consideration. In other words, it is a THEORY.
7.1.4 STEP 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS
THEORY also underpin the Research Findings perspective
The stage of research findings is the most vulnerable to researcher’s discretion. Most of the times the researcher does the data analysis depending on the data input that he or she acquired from the data collection exercise and records the findings herein. Surprisingly enough, the outcome may vary much with the past research findings.
WHY?
Simple, The Researcher has RE-INVENTED the wheel
What do we mean by reinventing the wheel. It is a common saying and according to Cambridge dictionary, it means
“To Waste Time Learning How to Do Something When It Is Already Known How to Do It”
I like this second part of the above statement-“When It Is Already Known How to Do It”
In research, it is already known how to do it- in other words, it is already known how results pertaining a particular concept should be.
Let me give you a simple example
In our previous case of demand theory; Price Increase-Quantity Demanded Decreases for a normal good (other factors constant). This is an inverse relationship (NEGATIVE)
So, now if I carry out similar research in a different context, whether location or for another normal good, the results should be;
“if the Price had Increase-Quantity Demanded Decrease for a normal good”
Again, there will be an inverse relationship (NEGATIVE), may be the level of negativity will vary
Now this is what am referring to as; When It Is Already Known How to Do It”
For the above case of DEMAND, it is already established theoretically that an inverse/negative relationship prevails if it is a case of normal good.
Therefore, the researcher cannot re-invent the wheel such that in his/her research findings, the relationship between Price and Quantity Demanded turns to be “POSITIVE!” for this is not the norm-expected relationship.
BUT us who are in the University teaching fraternity we already know that;
Most of the times the research findings gotten by the students in a certain study, are casually recorded in their thesis or projects as guided by the specific University’s format. Yet the results may carry no THEORY with them. They are not theoretical.
Past Similar Research Knowledge
“Have you ever asked yourself, if you are an academician or professional scholar why in chapter five of your project or thesis you needed to indicate other past studies with similar research findings as it was in your case?”
As usual we know after we get our research findings, in Chapter five where most researchers document their findings, they indicate other similar past studies and if they differ, they suggest why that could have been the case. In fact, this is always done in a casual matter as a way of either adhering to the University or sponsor format of writing thesis or projects.
But in actual sense, scholar or the postgraduate student don’t have the justification as to why this highlighting of similar past studies is of paramount importance.
So let me continue with the saying that
“We don't need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to hire someone who already knows how to make the system work”.
How does this fit in our research findings? The answer is that
THEORY also underpin the research findings perspective
Illustration Four
If we again relax the assumption of considering one factor “Price of the product” in the case of Demand Theory aforementioned and incorporate more factors that determine demand of a product, such as
Price of the product
Consumer’s income,
Consumer’s tastes and preferences and
Price of other related products
then the Empirical model will be represented as follows
Let
P is Price of the product
CI is Consumers’ income
CT is Consumers’ tastes
P0 is Price of related products
DV is the Quantity Demanded
Then, the empirical model will be as shown below
DV=ß0 - ß1P + ß2CI- ß3CT + ß4P0
Now, assume that the researcher went a head and collected data for all the study variables as per the empirical formula. Once data analysis is performed, i.e., testing of the hypotheses, the outcome will be something like this;
Y==ß0 -0.72P +0.07CI-0.04CT +0.08P0
Then, other past studies should portray similar results if the same variables were used. For example, past studies will have findings with empirical models such as (see case a to c below);
Case “a” Y==ß0 -0.3P +0.17CI-0.34CT +0.56P0
Case “b” Y==ß0 -20P +0.56CI-0.27CT +0.39P0
Case “c” Y= ß0 -1.34P +0.51CI-0.21CT +0.77P0
Now, any researcher who carries research using the same factors as it is in the above case, the research findings should and ought to be of similar findings as far as relational perspectives of those factors to dependent variable is concerned. So, you can see there is theory congruence between the existing body of knowledge as far as the relational aspect of the variables in the past literature and the current empirical model is concerned. This is the reason why a researcher need to show other similar past studies to confirm that there is no way one can alter the already well known phenomenal relationship between or amongst variables that already exist. In other words, no one can re-invent the wheel.
NB4: Therefore, the Research Finding section of the study (i.e., findings gotten) should also portray the theoretical foundations of the concept under consideration. In other words, it is a THEORY.
7.1.5 STEP 5: NEW KNOWLEDGE
THEORY also underpin New Knowledge perspective
Arriving at new knowledge so as to add to the body of existing one is equally a challenge to researchers.
Any research undertaken should be of value addition. But the question is,
HOW do you establish that your research has added new knowledge in the already existing body of knowledge?
HOW do you justify that the end users of your project/thesis or paper should not throw the document through the window?
What is your THESIS?
This is the Apex stage in research and if a theoretical approach was adopted, the aforementioned questions will be as good as the corresponding answers thereof.
New knowledge arises from diverse perspectives, it can be
Theoretical,
Methodological &
Contextual.
For the sake of making you comprehend the matter at hand, that is theoretical foundation, you need to note that new knowledge arises from the magnitude or size change of the Beta (β) coefficient. Such that, although the empirical results are the same, for of course that is what is expected, the coefficients representing the size change is what matters.
Again, remember that the empirical model gotten from the current research is similar to the past literature models but the difference is the magnitude change shown by the different coefficients
Illustration Five
If we again relax the assumption of considering one factor “Price of the product” in the case of Demand Theory aforementioned and incorporate more factors that determine demand of a product, such as
Price of the product
Consumer’s income,
Consumer’s tastes and preferences and
Price of other related products
then the Empirical model will be represented as follows
Let
P is Price of the product
CI is Consumers’ income
CT is Consumers’ tastes
P0 is Price of related products
DV is the Quantity Demanded
Then, the empirical model will be as shown below
DV=ß0 - ß1P + ß2CI- ß3CT + ß4P0
Now, assume that the researcher went a head and collected data for all the study variables as per the empirical formula. Once data analysis is performed, i.e., testing of the hypotheses, the outcome will be something like this;
Y==ß0 -0.72P +0.07CI-0.04CT +0.08P0
Now, look at these disparities
So, the new additional knowledge is what is referred to as ones “THESIS”
(Caution-Your Thesis is not the topic of your research. Your thesis is your new knowledge established).
NB5: Therefore, the New Knowledge section of the study (i.e., Beta(β) Coefficient change) should also portray the theoretical foundations of the concept under consideration. In other words, it is a THEORY.
Difference Between Theoretical Foundation And Theoretical Review
8.1 Introduction
I have so far answered one of our key questions under theoretical foundation components-““Where should one put (format) the aspect of Theoretical Foundation in the Dissertation or Proposal?”
The answer is, theoretical foundation is everywhere intense.
Then, the second question in the introductory stage of this article was, “Is theoretical foundations the same as theoretical review?” Let me be precise and hummer the nail on the head because scholars have depicted dissimilar arguments on this subject matter. The following Table 1.2 summarizes the points
Summary
It is clear that the matter of theory is not small and cannot be thrown under the carpet as it is purported by many people who carelessly refer to it being only one word that looks simple. This term is the pivotal concept in any type of research and for any successful efforts in adding new knowledge. Therefore, this aspect need to be given preeminence in the world of research. Theory is wide and deep and it does not represent the diverse definitions allover but it is what works. Any concept that is not practical, be it from political, academic, science or any interdisciplinary field, if it does not translate to what is practical and observable, then that is not a THEORY.
A THEORY is supposed to be in the topic of your study, in chapter one on the background of the study, in chapter two about literature review, in chapter three on research methodology, then in research findings and conclusions. So, it is everywhere intense. This being the case, as a researcher or scholar, you need to look at research from the eye-lenses of theory. Therefore, theory should be everywhere intense in your research.
