Instructor’s Corner

Human Resource Development Review

2025, Vol. 24(2) 225–241
So, What is Theory? © The Author(s) 2025
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/15344843241313150
journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd

Jin Lee1 

Abstract
This essay delves into the essential knowledge required for the development and
contribution of theory, focusing on its definition, components, and the different
methods for making theoretical contributions. I view theory not as a monumental
intellectual achievement, but as a product of the theorizing process, moving away from
the idea of a fully developed theory. I highlight four main outcomes of theorizing:
concepts, principles, models, and theories, which exist along a continuum. Theoretical
contributions involve introducing, refining, expanding, and replacing these outcomes. I
also present three approaches—Theory-driven, Phenomena-driven, and Review-
driven—as pathways for researchers to make theoretical contributions. The goal of
this essay is to make the theorizing process more accessible and manageable for early-
career researchers and doctoral students in HRD, offering guidance and support in
their theory-building endeavors.

Keyword
Theorizing, theory building, theory development, theoretical contributions

Every semester, I always challenge my PhD students by asking “Why do you pursue a
doctoral degree?” And most of the time, the responses are quite similar. The following
is a reconstruction of a typical dialogue between me and my students on a first day of
class.

1
The Catholic University of Korea, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:
Jin Lee, Department of Business Administration, The Catholic University of Korea, 43 Jibong-ro, Bucheon-si,
Gyeonggi-do 14662, Republic of Korea.
Email: [email protected]
226 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

Me: “So, why on earth are you pursuing a Ph.D.?”

Student A: “I want to drive better results in HR with stronger expertise.”

Student B: “To support my long-term career growth.”

Me: “Ah, the classic ‘knowledge is power’ line. Good, but that’s not why you’re really
here. Your mission in grad school? Shifting from a knowledge consumer to a knowledge
broker. How? By contributing to theory development!
Silence. And then comes the moment that never fails to drop the room into deeper silence:
“So, what is theory?”

Unlike the natural sciences, which aim to identify and explain universal laws and
patterns in the physical world, the social sciences are concerned with understanding and
elucidating human behavior, social structures, and interactions (Collins, 1994;
Giddens, 1976). Theory is essential in this process because theory serves as a
framework for exploring what, how, and why of individuals, as well as defining the
boundary conditions related to who, where, and when. (Whetten, 1989). Further, theory
is used to guide data collection and interpretation, enhancing our understanding of
phenomena and addressing significant issues, ultimately bringing us closer to de-
veloping a more refined theory (Ashforth, 2021). In this vein, disciplines in social
sciences such as sociology, management, and psychology hold theory in high regard,
with ongoing discussions about what precisely constitutes a theory, what does not
qualify as a theory, the origins of theories, and the appropriate criteria for evaluating
them (Bacharach, 1989; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1989; Whetten, 1989).
In the field of human resource development (HRD), which is part of the social
sciences, the significance of theory cannot be overstated. As a relatively new discipline,
HRD has made a substantial impact in practice, creating a strong demand for original
theories (Lynham, 2000). Many scholars in HRD have stressed the importance of
theory development and have dedicated their efforts to generating theoretical insights
(e.g., Holton, 2002; Seo et al., 2019; Swanson, 1999; Torraco, 1997; Torraco & Holton,
2002; Wang & Doty, 2022). However, despite these scholarly efforts, the field has been
starved of new, home-grown theories. The pace of theory-building specific to HRD has
been relatively slow, with researchers often leaning on or adapting theories from other
fields. Additionally, early-career scholars and doctoral students frequently find
themselves overwhelmed by the demands of theory building. This reluctance may
largely be attributed to the field’s strong focus on fully developed theories, which may
discourage emerging researchers from recognizing their own contributions as valid
“theories.”
Indeed, theory building is a serious enterprise; however, it does not only entail
developing a fully-fledged theory. One can contribute to the theorizing process in
various ways. In other words, theory is an outcome of theorizing (Swedberg, 2012),
Lee 227

which can take many forms. Furthermore, the development of theory is contingent upon
a comprehensive understanding of the theorizing process and its constituent elements.
The primary purpose of this essay is thus to introduce the building blocks of theory
development to early-career researchers and doctoral students, guiding and assisting
them in participating in the process of theorization and contributing to the formation of
HRD theory. To accomplish this, I begin by summarizing the definitions of theory as
presented by scholars in other social science disciplines as well as in HRD. Next, I
briefly argue that theory is an outcome of theorizing. Then, I discuss the four types of
outcomes of theorizing and their relationships. Finally, I conclude by highlighting key
considerations for HRD researchers.

Definitions and Types of Theory

The word theory is originated from the Greek, Theoria, meaning ‘to see, to observe and
to contemplate’ to reach a judgement or conclusion. In this vein, the definitions of
theory provided by scholars have been articulated in a comparable fashion. In his
classical text On theoretical sociology, Merton (1967) argues that theory is defined as
“logically interconnected sets of propositions from which empirical regularities can be
derived” (p. 39). Merton also put an emphasis on the role of empirically testable
hypotheses in theory development. Meanwhile, Sutherland (1975) claims that theory is
“an ordered set of assertions about a generic behavior or structure assumed to hold
throughout a significantly broad range of specific instances” (p. 9). Merton highlights
the significance of empirical testability, arguing that theories should be validated
through empirical evidence. Conversely, Sutherland focuses on the generalizability of
theories, asserting that they must apply to a broad spectrum of instances. Dubin (1978)
offers a simpler definition of theory as “the attempt of man to model some theoretical
aspect of the real world” (p. 26). Bacharach (1989) suggests that a theory is a statement
of relations among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints
(p. 496). Gioia and Pitre (1990) also defined theory as a statement of concepts and their
interrelationships that shows how and/or why a phenomenon occurs. Similarly, Torraco
(1997) defined a theory as an explanation of what a phenomenon is and how it
functions.
What about types of theories? Ritzer (2011) classifies theories based on their
historical development, highlighting classical, modern, and critical/postmodern per-
spectives. His focus is primarily on the evolution of sociological thought over time. In
contrast, Turner (2013) offers a more structural and analytical classification, organizing
theories according to the level of analysis—micro, middle-range, and macro—while
emphasizing the mechanisms and processes inherent in each theory. While Ritzer’s
classification leans toward a historical perspective, Turner’s approach is more sys-
tematic and underscores the theoretical mechanisms and interrelationships among
different levels of analysis. Meanwhile, Sandberg and Alvesson (2021) identify five
distinct types of theories, each serving a unique purpose: explaining, comprehending,
ordering, enacting, and provoking theory.
228 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

However, these classification schemes have predominantly centered on grand

theories, and while these definitions and typologies help differentiate between what
constitutes a theory and what does not, they do not provide guidance on where to begin
the process of theory development (Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017). To effectively assist
novice researchers in developing theories and making theoretical contributions, a more
concrete, analytical, and procedural approach is essential. This goes beyond merely
defining and classifying theories abstractly, as seen in Bacharach’s (1989, p. 496)
characterization of theory as “a linguistic device used to organize a complex empirical
world.” Instead, it requires a more actionable framework that enhances understanding
of the components and relationships within theories.
Swedberg (2012, 2014) articulates that social scientists today exhibit a strong
proficiency in research methodologies; however, they often show a notable deficiency
in their engagement with theory. He suggests that a fruitful avenue for addressing this
imbalance may lie in prioritizing the process of theorizing over the mere production of
established theories. In essence, the primary and essential step should be to characterize
theory as the outcome of the theorizing process and to identify the different types of
outcomes it produces.

Understanding Theory as an Outcome of Theorizing: From

Dichotomy to Continuum
Many academics exhibit a reluctance to apply the term “theory” to describe their work,
often favoring terms like “principles,” “conceptual frameworks,” or “models” (Runkel
& Runkel, 1984; Weick, 1995). This hesitation may arise from a prevalent belief that
theories represent the culmination of exceptional intellectual achievements, which can
lead researchers to shy away from designating their initial ideas as theories. Addi-
tionally, many scholars may believe that the tradition in graduate education, which
emphasizes established theories, leads novice researchers to the prevailing notion that a
theory must exist in a fully developed form, often depicted by complex diagrams with
boxes and arrows. This perspective can create barriers for emerging scholars who may
feel that their ideas must reach a similar level of sophistication before they can be
deemed meaningful contributions to the field. They might think, “This concept requires
further refinement and empirical validation before it can be classified as a theory.” This
mindset is rooted in the assumption that theories are inherently distinct from concepts or
models. The misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding the definition of
theory, along with a focus on what constitutes a fully developed theory, have led to a
dichotomous tendency to categorize ideas as either theories or not (Sutton & Staw,
1995; Weick, 1995), rather than examining their core components.
However, one does not need to be a genius to generate a theory, nor does it need to be
in a complete form (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It is uncommon for
anyone to develop a comprehensive theory from the beginning (Weick, 1995). Rather,
theory encompasses the outcomes encountered during the theorizing process.
Lee 229

Researchers have employed various ways of theorizing, such as induction, de-

duction, abduction, generalizing, model-building, using metaphor, and so on
(Swedberg, 2012, 2014; Sætre & Van de Ven, 2021). Swedberg (2014) suggests that the
process of theory development typically unfolds in three primary stages: (1) theorizing,
(2) the formulation of theory, and (3) the empirical testing of that theory. He further
continues that a theory emerges from the theorizing process and proposes a four-step
approach to theorizing within social sciences: Observing and selecting an intriguing or
unexpected subject for research, naming the phenomenon and articulating the core
concept, developing the theory, and completing the tentative theory with an expla-
nation. Weick (1995) also contends that the theorizing process comprises a series of
interconnected steps of “abstracting, generalizing, relating, selecting, explaining,
synthesizing, and idealizing.” (p. 389).
Regardless of the process, as Runkel and Runkel (1984) argued, the process of
theorizing can be characterized by the concept of interim struggles, which highlights
that theorizing is an iterative and non-linear endeavor. Further, it is also crucial to
remember that a common emphasis in these theorizing processes is that the outcomes
do not consist solely of a completed theory; instead, they include a range of various
results that emerge throughout the course of theorization. Indeed, theorizing is not
simply about classifying the outcome as a theory or not; rather, the outcomes of
theorizing exist across a spectrum.
Most importantly, viewing theory as a continuum can offer early-career researchers a
practical guide and reassurance by setting more achievable expectations about what
qualifies as a theoretical contribution (Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017). In other words,
activities such as the creation of new concepts, the modification and enhancement of
existing ones, and the discovery or refinement of principles among newly established
concepts can indeed be regarded as theories if these activities yield meaningful the-
oretical contributions. This understanding aligns with the view that theory is not merely
a finished product but a dynamic and iterative endeavor within the broader continuum
of theoretical work. Then, the next step is to identify the outcomes of theorizing from
the perspective of theory as a continuum.

The Four Outcome of Theorizing

While existing definitions of theory do not fully encompass all components of theory
construction and the theorizing process, it is encouraging that some definitions suggest
theory can exist along a continuum, instead of being strictly dichotomous, by depicting
the components of theory (or outcomes of theorizing). For example, Bacharach (1989)
concludes that theory can be defined as “a statement of relationships between units
observed (i.e., variables) or approximated (i.e., constructs) in the empirical world”
(p. 498). In their recent review of theory building, Shepherd and Suddaby (2017)
concluded that “a theory can be conceptualized as a statement of concepts and their
relationships that specifies who, how, and/or why a phenomena occurs within a set of
boundary assumptions” (p. 75). And Dubin (1978) mentioned model in his definition.
230 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

Also, according to Charmaz (2006; 2014), an outcome of theorizing does not ex-
clusively mean generating a whole new theory; it can be developing a concept, revising
and improving extant theories, which essentially accompanies identifying new con-
cepts and principles.
In sum, research on the process of theorizing indicates that the outcomes of the-
orization can ultimately be categorized into four stages: concepts, principles that
connect concepts, models that incorporate researchers’ assumptions along with col-
lections of principles, and theories that undergo logical and empirical verification and
justification (e.g., Charmaz, 2006; Gagné, 1985; Hempel, 1965; Jenkins & Deno, 1971;
Lave & March, 1993). The following is a brief description of each outcome of
theorizing.

Concept
The first and the most basic element of theorizing is concept. A concept is a mental
representation or notion of something in reality, categorizing objects, events, or other
entities (Gagné, 1985; Jonassen, 2006; Rocco et al., 2022). In addition to their con-
tribution to scientific inquiry and theorization, concepts serve as fundamental units that
allow individuals to categorize and deepen their understanding of the world. They play
a vital role in everyday meaning-making, thereby facilitating essential human activities
(Gagné, 1985; Jonassen, 2006). Medin and Coley (1998) suggests the seven functions
of concept as: categorization, understanding, inference, explanation and reasoning,
learning, communication, and combination. Indeed, Concepts and categories funda-
mentally underpin human cognition and behavior, as communication is inherently
dependent on concepts; articulating one concept necessitates referencing others
(Jonassen, 2006; Medin, 1989). For example, to grasp the concept of human resource
development (HRD), one must identify at least three sub-concepts: human, resource,
and development.
To formulate a theory, a researcher must identify the central concept and its as-
sociated category, which are integral to the theory, and the concept itself may serve as a
theoretical attribute (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Charmaz, 2006, 2014). A fundamental
aspect of a scientific concept is its capacity to clearly categorize phenomena within a
broader framework (Swedberg, 2012). Thus, concepts provide a generalized idea that
can effectively guide inquiry across diverse phenomena (Merton, 1948).
Developing a concept begins by identifying and labeling a phenomenon or event.
Consequently, much of the work in theorizing centers on defining and refining these
concepts (Merton, 1948). But identifying a concept is not equated with simply giving a
name to what you observe; Concept is abstract and analytical (Swedberg, 2012).
Jenkins and Deno (1971) further suggest that concepts are defined as groups of dis-
tinguishable events or objects. These categories may be based on shared attributes like
color or size, functionality, or even meaning and value. Regardless of the specific basis
for equivalence, a concept is identified when different events or objects are consistently
grouped together under a common classification.
Lee 231

Once a (central) concept and its property is formulated or identified, it is ready to

move onto the next step of theorizing. As Hempel (1965) asserted, for a concept to be
deemed scientifically useful, it must be conducive to creating general laws or theoretical
principles that represent consistencies within the area of study, thereby serving as a
foundation for explanation, prediction, and overall scientific comprehension. This
implies that a researcher needs to move beyond merely defining a concept and instead
detail the entire framework of how a phenomenon functions (Swedberg, 2012, 2014).
Understanding the causes of a phenomenon and its potential outcomes is also essential
for further theorizing. Consequently, concept development is the first and foremost step
in theory building (Storberg-Walker, 2007; Rocco et al., 2022), followed by formu-
lating principles.

Principle
The term “principle” is often used to describe statements that define the relationship
between two or more concepts, emphasizing how these concepts are interconnected or
interact with one another (Gagné, 1985; Jonassen, 2006). Principles are overarching
rules or laws that can be applied across a range of situations. Establishing a descriptive
relationship between two or more concepts forms the basis for common human rea-
soning, such as comparison/contrast and causality (Jonassen, 2006). A principle
clarifies the connections between concepts and describes how phenomena function
under particular conditions, while also offering predictions about similar outcomes of
the relationship in various contexts.
Why are principles significant in the development of theories or in making theo-
retical contributions? A principle can constitute a theory on its own, but its greater
significance lies in being a key step in the development of models or a full-fledged
theory by generating propositions. A proposition is a declarative statement that asserts a
fact or presents a truth, describing a particular event or situation. It has a truth value,
meaning it can be assessed as either true or false. A proposition is derived from a
principle. In other words, while a principle is a general rule that explains the rela-
tionships between concepts, a proposition applies this rule to specific situations or
conditions (Peirce, 1998). Therefore, propositions can be seen as building blocks for
constructing principles (Jonassen, 2006). By employing propositions, a researcher can
design an empirical investigation. A concept is represented by a variable (i.e., an
operationalized expression of a concept or construct), and a proposition between two
variables (i.e., specific rules outlining their interaction under defined conditions) is
expressed as a hypothesis (i.e., a measurable form of the proposition). Within this
framework, a principle offers the theoretical basis for the proposition or hypothesis.
For instance, the principle of classical conditioning in behavioral psychology can be
summarized as: “When a stimulus is presented repeatedly, it is learned to elicit a
specific response.” “This principle is then applied to a proposition in a specific ex-
perimental context, where, for example, “A dog will drool merely upon hearing a bell
after receiving food following the bell sound.” Certainly, there are concepts that are
232 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

fundamental prerequisites: stimulus, learning, and response. Thus, concepts form the
basic elements that underpin the entire understanding, a principle establishes a general
rule and explains the relationships between concepts, and a proposition illustrates how
that rule is applied in particular instances.

Model
The next step in theorizing, building upon principles, is the model. But what exactly is a
model? We encounter models everywhere—fashion models, car prototypes, food
replicas… Recognizing the common features these models share can make under-
standing the concept of a model much simpler. A model is a simplified representation of
a specific part of reality, capturing some of its key features while omitting others (Lave
& March, 1993). Thus, a theoretical model is a structured attempt to explain the world
through interconnected assumptions, providing a simplified view of complex phe-
nomena to aid in comprehension and analysis with the help of formalization (Lave &
March, 1993; Swedberg, 2014).
Simply put, a model consists of concepts and principles pertaining to a phenomenon.
In addition, in many instances, a model serves as a concrete and visual
(i.e., diagrammed or mathematical) representation of a theory’s concepts and principles,
helping to illustrate how the theory operates in specific contexts. While a diagram may
resemble a model, especially in its initial phase, a model extends beyond just a visual
depiction. It also includes a set of interconnected assumptions that explain how the
underlying concepts and principles function. (Swedberg, 2014). Thus, to build a model,
one should first have defined concepts and principles on the table.
Lave and March (1993) suggest that building a model begins with observing facts
and treating them as the result of an unknown process. They asserted, “A good model is
almost always a statement about a process, any many bad models fail because they have
no sense of process” (p. 40). Next, speculation on the processes that could produce
these results is conducted, using newly defined or existing concepts and principles.
Additionally, a model with high generality, applicable to a wide range of situations and
contexts, holds greater significance. Therefore, models are judged by their ability to
accurately predict new facts.
It is also important to recognize that there is no single “best” model for any given
phenomenon. Coleman (1964) argued that, due to the complexity of social phenomena,
they cannot be completely explained by a single theory. Given that a model only
represents some characteristics of reality, it’s natural for multiple models to exist for the
same phenomenon, each focusing on a different perspective (Lave & March, 1993).
This justifies the existence of several models related to a particular phenomenon.

Theory
The ultimate result of the theorizing process, following the stage of modeling, is, in
essence, a theory. After developing a model that serves as a simplified representation of
Lee 233

relationships, theorizing culminates in a fully developed theory. As the prior definitions

suggest, a theory can then be articulated through structured language or symbols to
systematically describe or predict certain phenomena (e.g., Gioia & Pitre, 1990;
Swedberg, 2012; Torraco, 1997).
However, perhaps the most perplexing classification is the relationship between a
theory and a model. Unfortunately, the distinction between a fully developed theory and
a model is often vague, and there is no agreement on how to distinguish one from the
other (Sutton & Staw, 1995; Swedberg, 2012). For example, Merton (1967) describes a
theory as “logically interconnected sets of propositions from which empirical uni-
formities can be derived” (p. 39), adding to this ambiguity. If a theory, as a collection of
propositions, resembles a model in structure, it raises the question of what truly
distinguishes a theory from a model.
In this regard, Coleman’s (1964) classification is worth mentioning here because it
provides a nuanced distinction between models and theories. His idea of “sometimes-
true theories” (p. 516) reflects the conditional truth of models. This idea emphasizes that
models can be valid under specific circumstances, helping to understand complex
phenomena by identifying contexts in which they apply, whereas traditional theories
are expected to be universally true and applicable to broader contexts. Dickmeyer
(1989) also notes that models provide a structured framework to represent phenomena,
simplifying complex relationships by focusing on specific aspects. In contrast, theories
aim to offer more holistic explanations that can be applied across various situations,
providing predictive power and a broader understanding of the phenomena in question.
In this vein, a model can evolve into a theory if it undergoes validation, achieving
relative generalizability and temporal continuity (Coleman, 1964; Swedberg, 2014).
Models can often be proposed through conceptual discussions alone, with all as-
sumptions made explicit (Swedberg, 2012, 2014). However, for a model to be rec-
ognized as a theory, its assumptions must be stripped away, and a rigorous verification
process is required (Swedberg, 2014). Researchers can achieve this by altering the
conditions under which a model is tested, which helps identify the most effective way to
explain a phenomenon (Coleman, 1964; Swedberg, 2014). Of course, the process of
transformation from model to theory is not always straightforward, as it requires further
investigation and empirical validation. A model might remain as a sometimes-true
theory, but under certain conditions, it could potentially develop into a broader theory.
This highlights the dynamic nature of scientific theory development, where models
evolve and may eventually become universally applicable theories through ongoing
research and refinement.
The transition from model to theory does not signify the conclusion of the theorizing
process. Instead, a theory marks the culmination of one stage of theorization and the
beginning of another. It serves as a framework for examining various phenomena and is
instrumental in constructing theoretical frameworks or models in research. When new
phenomena arise or existing ones are viewed from a novel perspective, a theory offers
new insights and approaches to interpreting these phenomena. This process can lead to
234 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

the development of new models. Therefore, while a model can evolve into a theory, a
theory can, in turn, facilitate the creation of additional models.

Suggestions for HRD Researchers: Leveraging the Four Pillars

of Theorizing for Multifaceted Theoretical Contributions
This essay seeks to demystify the concept of theory, offering guidance tailored to early-
career researchers and doctoral students in HRD, with the aim of making theoretical
contributions more approachable and less daunting. A critical first step in achieving
such contributions is understanding what defines a theory. Theories are not exclusively
monumental achievements crafted by distinguished scholars; instead, they represent the
products of the theorizing process and exist on a continuum rather than as fully finalized
forms. The process of theorizing yields various outcomes, which can be classified into
concepts, principles, models, and theories. Concepts are mental constructs that rep-
resent objects or phenomena, serving as the foundation of theories and encapsulating
essential ideas. Principles, in turn, define the rules governing relationships among
concepts. From principles, propositions emerge, allowing for evaluation as true or false
when applied in specific contexts. Models utilize these concepts and principles to
provide structured explanations of particular phenomena. With broader validation,
models can evolve into theories, characterized by their generalizability and applica-
bility across contexts. By outlining this progression, I aim to clarify the theorizing
process and inspire emerging scholars to take an active role in developing and refining
theories within the HRD field.
As theorizing in HRD research is a dynamic process spanning multiple levels of
abstraction—from concepts and principles to models and fully developed theories—
theoretical contributions can be made across this spectrum as outcomes of the theo-
rizing process, rather than being confined to a singular theory. Consequently, theoretical
contributions in research can thus take multiple forms.
Building on this perspective, I outline three primary approaches to making theoretical
contributions in HRD: theory-driven, phenomena-driven, and review-driven contributions.
Each provides unique avenues for deepening theoretical understanding through the essential
elements of theorizing. Table 1 summarizes a brief overview of how the three approaches to
theorizing align with the four outcomes of continuous theorizing in HRD research:
First, theory-driven contributions entail testing established theories, verifying new
hypotheses through existing theories, or developing new theories. It highlights the
importance of validating, expanding, or modifying theories, with a strong emphasis on
theoretical robustness and broader applicability. theory-driven approach often begins
with recontextualizing key concepts from established theories to align with specific
research contexts. This approach often entails juxtaposing established theories or
concepts across public and private sectors (e.g., Andersen, 2010), extending them to
specific national or cultural contexts (e.g., Schaufeli, 2018), or rigorously testing and
validating them within distinct populations (e.g., Crawley et al., 2015; Gutermuth &
Hamstra, 2024).
Lee 235

Table 1. The Three Approaches to Theory Application in HRD: Concept, Principle, Model, and
Theory.

Approach to The four outcomes of continuous theorizing

theoretical
contributions Concept Principle Model Theory

Theory-driven Reframing Applying and Developing a Expanding or refine

existing concepts testing existing context-specific existing theories
within specific principles in model from based on findings.
research specific settings. established
contexts. theories.
Phenomena- Defining new or Proposing new Creating models Developing theories
driven reframe existing principles to to represent to comprehensively
concepts based explain observed relationships in explain phenomena.
on phenomena. phenomena. new phenomena.
Review-driven Synthesizing key Integrating Designing unified Proposing new
concepts from relationships models from theoretical
the literature. among concepts multiple frameworks from
across studies. literature reviewed gaps.
sources.

In addition, the theory-driven approach plays a crucial role in discovering new

principles or modifying and extending existing ones. In particular, the theory-driven
approach is highly useful for incorporating new concepts into existing theoretical
frameworks, redefining relationships between concepts, or reinterpreting the rela-
tionships among existing concepts through the lens of a new theory. It is likely one of
the most widely used approaches in social science research.
Models, which integrate principles to explain specific phenomena, offer another
avenue for contribution. In the theory-driven approach, existing models can offer fresh
perspectives on phenomena or be applied to entirely new situations (Lave & March,
1993; Swedberg, 2012). In this approach, researchers generally combine existing
theoretical variables or principles to create new models, which are used to predict the
phenomenon. Validating these models is also essential, as it involves developing
variables and measurement tools, which are important theoretical contributions. Thus,
this approach helps advance and improve models by rigorously testing, validating, and
adapting existing principles to new contexts or circumstances. A model may ultimately
evolve into a theory through rigorous testing and validation (Swedberg, 2014), and
theories, in turn, can generate new concepts, principles, or models, perpetuating the
cycle of theoretical development.
Additionally, a theory may be replaced by another theory over time. As mentioned
earlier, the completion of a theory does not mark the end of the theorizing process. A
theory can be challenged and advanced through further and improved research (Corley
& Gioia, 2011). Cloutier and Langley (2020) also emphasize that theoretical
236 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

contributions involve not only presenting new ideas but also reinterpreting existing
theories in new contexts, enhancing them with additional explanations or greater
precision, or exploring their practical applications.
While the theory-driven approach builds on existing concepts or theories to generate
new theoretical outcomes, the phenomena-driven approach begins with a specific
phenomenon or issue as the basis for developing or refining theoretical outcomes.
Regarding concepts, the phenomena-driven approach begins with a particular
phenomenon or problem, aiming to develop, expand, or revise a concept. This approach
entails either modifying existing concepts to better align with evolving social phe-
nomena or defining entirely new concepts based on phenomena that current theories fail
to explain, thereby providing a new way to understand those phenomena. For instance,
Uhl-Bien and Pillai (2007) shifted away from the conventional view of followers as
passive recipients of leadership influence, merely executing the leader’s directives.
Instead, they redefined followership as “if leadership involves actively influencing
others, then followership involves allowing oneself to be influenced” (p. 196). Their
new definition of followership, by defining followers as active agents, enhances the
understanding of the current phenomenon where followership also influences
leadership.
Researchers also propose new principles to elucidate a specific phenomenon, either
by refining existing principles from established theories or by deriving novel rules
based on newly introduced concepts. Similarly, they develop new models to address
phenomena that existing theories fail to explain or extend and modify current models to
better capture the nuances of the new phenomenon. The phenomena-driven approach,
which focuses on exploring new phenomena or offering fresh perspectives on existing
ones, is frequently applied in qualitative research. In particular, the grounded theory
approach stands out for developing theories for phenomena that existing theories
cannot provide a suitable explanation. Sociologists Glaser & Strauss (1967), unable to
find an existing theory to explain how terminally ill patients come to accept their death,
developed grounded theory as a methodology to theorize such novel phenomena.
The final approach to theoretical contributions is the review-driven approach. Unlike
the theory-driven and phenomena-driven approaches, this method does not involve
constructing theories based on data obtained through direct observation, but rather
synthesizes insights from existing research. Its primary advantage is thus the ability to
identify gaps between studies or theories, offering a more unified perspective on the
phenomenon and theory, especially when individual research findings are fragmented
or lack a comprehensive view.
The review-driven approach is especially effective for developing new research
questions by leveraging existing studies. This often takes the form of gap-spotting,
where overlooked areas in prior research are identified, or assumption-challenging,
where the foundational premises of existing theories and studies are questioned
(Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011). One of the examples is Lee’s (2023) review of the
workplace backlash studies. Lee (2023) reframes the concept of workplace backlash
using an existing theory. Workplace backlash has traditionally been conceptualized
Lee 237

from gendered perspectives, primarily through social role theory (Eagly, 1987).
However, defining backlash solely through the lens of gender stereotyping cannot
explain other forms of workplace backlash, such as those faced by racial minorities or
working parents, nor does it address why some minorities discriminate against other
minorities. Lee redefines the concept using social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto,
2004) and conceptualizes workplace backlash as a joint effort between dominant and
subordinate groups to maintain social hierarchies.
The review-driven approach can also guide the development of typologies and
taxonomies of existing concepts, principles, models, and theories to advance under-
standing in a specific field and identify areas for further development, which can also be
effective ways of theorizing and making theoretical contributions (Makadok et al.,
2018; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021). Lee et al.’s (2020) study serves as a strong example
of this approach, offering a classification of resources necessary for employee en-
gagement into three distinct categories: personal, organizational, and social.
Through the review-driven approach, researchers can critically evaluate existing
literature to challenge prevailing assumptions and formulate models grounded in al-
ternative premises (e.g., Lee et al., 2023; Watkins & Marsick, 2023). This method also
enables the synthesis of insights from diverse research domains, fostering cross-
fertilization to generate novel principles or models (e.g., Collins et al., 2017). Fur-
thermore, as exemplified by numerous review papers in HRDR, researchers can un-
dertake a comprehensive analysis of prior findings to develop cohesive and integrated
theoretical frameworks (Torraco, 2016).
The boundaries between these three approaches are not always strictly defined. The
choice between starting with a phenomenon or beginning with a theory often reflects a
difference in the initial focus. Similarly, the review-driven approach can also draw upon
existing theoretical frameworks to analyze the literature. However, recognizing the
distinct features of these approaches can serve as a helpful guide for researchers in
determining how to initiate their theoretical contributions. Moreover, researchers may
gravitate toward an approach they find more familiar or aligned with their preferences.
Most of all, the approaches outlined here are not intended to serve as a definitive
taxonomy of theorizing but rather as a basic framework for understanding the com-
ponents of a theory and their interrelationships. In this sense, the framework offers
various pathways for making theoretical contributions. It aims to demystify the process,
reframing theory-building not as an intimidating intellectual feat, but as an incremental
and attainable endeavor (Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017; Swedberg, 2014).
Ashforth (2021) described theory-building as the scholarly process most akin to
alchemy, where disconnected findings and ideas are transformed into a clear expla-
nation of why and how things operate. In this regard, theorizing or theory-building can
be considered a creative and iterative process that often involves numerous trial and
error. While it should be (social)scientific, it must also be artistic, involving creativity
and inspiration. I hope this perspective encourages more active engagement in the
creation and advancement of theories.
238 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

Good luck to all researchers, particularly early-career researchers and doctoral

students, who aim to contribute to the development and advancement of HRD theories.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Research Fund, 2022 of The
Catholic University of Korea (M-2022-B0008-00066)

ORCID iD
Jin Lee  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-335X

References
Andersen, J. A. (2010). Public versus private managers: How public and private managers differ
in leadership behavior. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02117.x
Ashforth, B. E. (2021). Why the heck did that happen? In X. P. Chen & H. K. Steensma (Eds.), A
journey toward influential scholarship: Insights from leading management scholars (pp.
1–25). Oxford University Press.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308374
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2020). What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organization
Theory, 1(1), Article 2631787720902473. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720902473
Coleman, J. (1964). Introduction to mathematical sociology. Free Press.
Collins, J. C., Zarestky, J., & Tkachenko, O. (2017). An integrated model of national HRD and critical
HRD: Considering new possibilities for human resource development. Human Resource De-
velopment International, 20(3), 236-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1258913
Collins, R. (1994). Four sociological traditions: Selected readings. Oxford University Press.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a
theoretical contribution?. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.2009.0486
Crawley, D. C., Maher, J. K., & Blake-Beard, S. (2015). She’s already busy: An exploratory study
of women’s workplace attitudes as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Gender
in Management: An International Journal, 30(4), 286–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/gm-04-
2014-0033
Lee 239

Dickmeyer, N. (1989). Metaphor, model, and theory in education research. Teachers College
Record, 91(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818909100204
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (revised ed.). Free Press.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative
sociologies. Basic Books.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of
Management Review, 15(4), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310758
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine Publishing Company.
Gutermuth, D., & Hamstra, M. R. (2024). Promotion focus is valued in men more than in women.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(5), 764–781. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2781
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of
science. Free Press.
Holton, E. F. (2002). The mandate for theory in human resource development. Human Resource
Development Review, 1(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011001
Jenkins, J. R., & Deno, S. L. (1971). Assessing knowledge of concepts and principles. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 8(2), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.
tb00911.x
Jonassen, D. H. (2006). On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-
006-8253-9
Lave, C. A., & March, J. G. (1993). An introduction to models in the social sciences. University
Press of America.
Lee, J. (2023). A critical review and theorization of workplace backlash: Looking back and
moving forward through the lens of social dominance theory. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 33(1), Article 100900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100900
Lee, J., Yi, J., & Kang, H. (2023). Explicating workplace backlash from social justice per-
spective: A systematic review of types, consequences, and coping strategies. Human
Resource Development Review, 22(3), 345–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/
15344843231181445
Lee, J. Y., Rocco, T. S., & Shuck, B. (2020). What is a resource: Toward a taxonomy of resources
for employee engagement. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 5–38. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484319853100
Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-
1096(200022)11:2<159::aid-hrdq5>3.0.co;2-e
Makadok, R., Burton, R., & Barney, J. (2018). A practical guide for making theory contributions
in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1530- 1545. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.2789
240 Human Resource Development Review 24(2)

Medin, D. L., & Coley, J. D. (1998). Concepts and categorization. In J. Hochberg & J. E. Cutting
(Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition: Perception and cognition at century’s end:
History, philosophy, theory (pp. 403–439). Academic Press.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American psychologist, 44(12),
1469–1481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469
Merton, R. K. (1948). The bearing of empirical research upon the development of social theory.
American Sociological Review, 13(5), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087142
Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology. The Free Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce, volume 2: Selected philosophical writings, 1893– 1913
(The Peirce Edition Project, Eds.). Indiana University Press.
Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S., & Silberman, D. (2022). Differentiating between conceptual and
theory articles: Focus, goals, and approaches. Human Resource Development Review, 21(1),
113–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211069795
Runkel, P. J., & Runkel, M. (1984). A guide to usage for writers and students in the social
sciences. Rowman & Littlefield.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or
problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification.
Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management
Review, 46(4), 684–701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0233
Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Work engagement in Europe: Relations with national economy,
governance and culture. Organizational Dynamics, 47(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.orgdyn.2018.01.003
Seo, J., Noh, K. B., & Ardichvili, A. (2019). Theory building and testing in HRD: Current
advancements and future directions. Human Resource Development Review, 18(4),
411–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319871698
Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647102
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In J. T. Jost & J.
Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 315–332). Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-18
Storberg-Walker, J. (2007). Understanding the conceptual development phase of applied theory-
building research: A grounded approach. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1),
63–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1192
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sutherland, J. W. (1975). Systems: Analysis, administration, and architecture. Van Nostrand.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
371–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
Swanson, R. A. (1999). HRD theory, real or imagined? Human Resource Development Inter-
national, 2(1), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678869900000002
Lee 241

Swedberg, R. (2012). Theorizing in sociology and social science: Turning to the context of
discovery. Theory and Society, 41(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-011-9161-5
Swedberg, R. (Ed.), (2014). From theory to theorizing Theorizing in social science: The context
of discovery (pp. 1–28). Stanford University Press.
Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory building research methods. In R. Swanson & E. Holton (Eds.),
Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice
(pp. 114–137). Berrett-Koehler.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore
the future. Human resource development review, 15(4), 404-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1534484316671606
Torraco, R. J., & Holton, E. F. (2002). A theorist’s toolbox. Human Resource Development
Review, 1(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011007
Turner, J. H. (2013). The structure of sociological theory (7th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage
Learning.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of
followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered
perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187–210).
Information Age Publishers.
Wang, G. G., & Doty, D. H. (2022). Theorizing human resource development practices in
extended contexts. Human Resource Development Review, 21(4), 410–441. https://doi.org/
10.1177/15344843221130918
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2023). Rethinking workplace learning and development
catalyzed by complexity. Human Resource Development Review, 22(3), 333–344. https://
doi.org/10.1177/15344843231186629
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
385–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management
revie, 14(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308376
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371

Author Biography
Jin Lee is an assistant professor of the Department of Business Administration in The
Catholic University of Korea. Under the broad theme of organizational innovation and
change, his current research and scholarship focuses on developing change agents
including entrepreneurs, leaders and middle managers. He also investigates factors
facilitating and inhibiting organizational and societal innovation and change using
qualitative research methodologies.