week 4 theory · 2013. 4. 12. · total activity time: 10 min. (5:25-5:35) • pass out picture...

4:30-4:35: Getting settled, outline

4:35-5:00: OIP

5:00-5:25: OAP (AJ)

5:25-5:35: Framing activity

5:35-5:55: Position paper

5:55-6:00: Break

6:00-6:10: What is theory?

6:10-6:25: Theory or not theory? activity

6:25-6:45: How theory helps us, why we need it, theory families

6:45-7:05: Applying theory activity

7:05-7:10: Checking in (minute paper)

7:10-7:15: Preview next week and closing questions

1

TOTAL ACTIVITY TIME: 10 MIN. (5:25-5:35)

• Pass out picture copy to each pair (8 groups total)

• Pass out frame & scissors to each pair

• Give pairs 3-4 min. to frame their picture

• Come back as a full group and have each pair hold up their picture; have them look around to see how different everyone’s is

• Select a few pairs to share how they chose to frame their picture: what did they decide to feature, and what did they decide to leave out? How did their frame affect their decision?

• Ask class: Why do you think we had you do this activity? How does this relate to organizational theory?

Sum up: The frame we use affects what we see. Pictures frames are a good metaphor for theory. The theory we choose to use affects what we see (and don’t see) in a situation. If we use a theory like isomorphism, we’re looking for ways in which organizations mimic each other, and why they do so. It doesn’t help us understand why organizations may differ. If we’re trying to understand why two organizations respond differently to a financial crisis, for example, the theory of isomorphism may not be very illuminating.

The way we frame also changes the story we tell. (Point to class examples if appropriate.) Depending on which theory we choose to apply, the story we tell about the phenomenon we’re examining is going to change. If we use a theory from the cultural lens, it’s going to tell a story about the org’s traditions and rituals. If we use a theory from the political lens, it’s going to tell a story about power and competition for resources. And so on.

Transition to next slide: So, what is theory?

3

5:35-5:55; BREAK AFTER

AJ to introduce

We could share with them a bit of a "tip" by saying other frames provide good critiques.

4

START AT 6:00

First ask class volunteers to explain in their own words what theory is. (If they struggle, ask them to name components of theory—what are some things that make a theory a theory.)

Then show our list. Point out any that weren’t mentioned.

• Concepts: Per Bess & Dee, “generated from observations or experiences.” E.g., student involvement (Astin’s theory explains the factors that contribute to or preclude student involvement (Astin’s theory explains the factors that contribute to or preclude student involvement in college)

• Explanation of relationships: Naming or defining concepts is necessary but not sufficient for theory. Theory needs to go beyond description to explain how different concepts related to each other. E.g., using Astin’s theory again, he explains how different factors (Greek organization membership, alcohol consumption, political beliefs, academic major, future goals, student characteristics, etc.) interrelate to predict a student’s level of involvement and provides justification, based in his data, for these relationships.

• Logic: Again with Astin, he doesn’t just provide hypotheses (e.g., if you’re a business major, you’ll be less involved on campus); rather, he discusses why that’s the case and how other factors affect such predictions (e.g., individual student characteristics and goals).

• Explain/predict: With Astin again, his goal was to develop a theory that would allow SA practitioners to predict how college affects students, both in the short term and the long term. Practitioners applying his theory can look at a range of student and institutional characteristic factors to make predictions at the individual student level as well as for institutions, and practitioners can use these predictions to make the changes they want to see. Generally, good theories have practical utility—you can put them to use in the work you do.

I like to apply the “kindergartner test” to see if a theory is well developed, i.e., asking, “Why? Why? Why? Why?” at every step. If the author provides a logical and satisfactory “why” at each step, it’s probably a good theory. If not, it may be a weak theory or not theory at all.

Ask class if they feel like this list is missing any criteria that define theory.

5

TOTAL ACTIVITY TIME: 15 MINUTES (start 6:10, end 6:25)

According to Sutton and Staw, which of the following examples are theory and which are

not? Why?

Post “Theory” and “Not Theory” signs on opposite sides of the room; point out which side

is which. Class has to move side to side to vote on each example. After they vote, ask a

representative from each side to explain why they voted the way they did.

Five examples to follow

6

Not theory; these are hypotheses that don’t specify why these relationships are expected

to be found.to be found.

From Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups:

The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645-

659. Retrieved from

http://hl2.bgu.ac.il/Users/www/48207/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A8

%203/lau%20murnighan.pdf

7

Not theory. “Data describe which empirical patterns were observed or are expected to be

observed, but they don’t explain why. … Empirical results can certainly provide useful observed, but they don’t explain why. … Empirical results can certainly provide useful

support for a theory; but they should not be construed as theory themselves.”



659. Retrieved from



8

Not theory. The diagram does “show causal relationships in a logical ordering,” but it is a

“stage prop” that doesn’t explain why these relationships are expected.“stage prop” that doesn’t explain why these relationships are expected.

From Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and

task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group

functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.

9

Not theory. Authors cite previous empirical findings supporting the faultline model, but

explicate the causal logic” of the model; they just describe other don’t adequately “explicate the causal logic” of the model; they just describe other

researchers’ findings. (Remember the kindergartner test.) They do (briefly) explain

the logic leading to their own hypotheses, but they don’t describe the logic behind

the faultline model.



659. Retrieved from



10

Might be theory! Authors explain the causal logic behind why people engage in

volunteering to improve their employment prospects, and then cite some empirical volunteering to improve their employment prospects, and then cite some empirical

findings that lend support to the relationship. (They answer “why”, but are their answers

logically satisfying?)

From Handy, F., Cnaan, R. A, Hustinx, L., Kang, C., Brudney, J. L., Haski-Leventhal, D.,

Holmes, K., Meijs, L. C. P. M., Pessi, A. B., Ranade, B., Yamauchi, N., & Zrinscak, S.

(2009). A cross-cultural examination of student volunteering: Is it all about résumé

building? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 498-523.

11

START 6:25 (20 MIN. TOTAL FOR THESE SLIDES)

These are Sutton & Staw’s criteria for theory. Their definition is aligned with grounded

theorists’ definition of theory: explains the relationships between concepts (theoretical

abstraction); doesn’t just describe the concepts.

However, DiMaggio questions their assertion that theory cannot be merely descriptive,

arguing that description can be theory (and can be valuable)—the what without the why,

so this matter is somewhat open for debate.

12

• Makes the world less confusing when we don’t have to interpret everything anew every time we see it. E.g., the MBTI—while there are some issues with it, knowing the framework can help make sense of the way some people behave. I’m a T (thinker), but understanding the way F’s (feelers) make decisions helps me understand what otherwise might be puzzling reactions to an idea I propose, and it also helps me think of the best way to make my case for something to them—appeal to their emotions. Without theory, I’m stuck thinking there’s either something wrong with them or something wrong with me when we don’t see eye to eye on something.

• Theory helps us avoid the two common sources of blame (per B&D) to think more reflectively and critically about a situation, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. By explaining a phenomenon, it helps us think more deeply about what might be going on. reflectively and critically about a situation, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. By explaining a phenomenon, it helps us think more deeply about what might be going on. And by explaining relationships that we may not have been aware of, it helps us see beyond the immediate context of the problem to think about how larger forces within the organization or its environment might be at work (like organizational culture or competition for resources).

• Because theory helps us have a broader perspective, it helps us think more broadly about possible solutions or options to address the situation. Thinking back to last week’s discussion on the doctoral student retention problem, without theory, we may limit ourselves to the immediate and obvious solutions (like raise the bar for GRE scores or create more assistantships). Thinking of theories that might be relevant suggest new ideas for addressing the issue (e.g., addressing departmental cultures or finding ways to socialize doctoral students as researchers). But theory will never give you all the answers—it’s a guide, not a prescription! Have to be able to apply it to your own situation and think about what aspects of it fit and don’t fit.

• Theory keeps us from being puzzled by why things happen as they do. E.g., why do some students embrace diversity programming and others don’t? Racial identity development theories may help explain why, and suggest steps we can take to change the outcomes so they’re more of what we want them to be (e.g., reach more students).

13

•As Bess & Dee mention, if we approached every organizational problem as if it were

unique, we’d quickly exhaust ourselves. Trial and error is often ineffective and inefficient.

Accumulated wisdom through theory helps us save time and energy in understanding and

coming up with solutions to problems we face. Good theories are generalizable across

organizations (though we’ll always have to make some tweaks), whereas specific strategies

or ideas often aren’t because they don’t account for variations among organizations. (E.g.,

the argument that colleges and universities should be run like business—we’ll encounter

this argument in future weeks. HEIs aren’t business and therefore solutions that work for

business often don’t work well for us!)business often don’t work well for us!)

•Because theories explain why, using them helps us think about problems in new and

deeper ways and illuminates factors in a situation that we might not otherwise recognize—

things we need to pay attention to in effectively addressing the situation. Also, if we don’t

understand the underlying relationships (which a theory explains), we may inadvertently

make things worse or create new problems when we implement a solution.

•Theories help us recognize patterns and relationships that we otherwise might not,

helping us make more sense of out the situations we encounter. When we understand

what’s going on and some ways to handle it, we tend to be less frustrated—we can take

action to change things rather than stewing about how things should be (empowering)

•If we can use theory to recognize patterns and predict outcomes (and to suggest ways to

intervene to change outcomes), we can be proactive rather than reactive in responding to

potential problems and threats, both those within the organization and those coming from

the larger environment.

14

Ask class to provide definitions for each.

• Positivist: Objective reality, facts can be observed and known, there is a single

“truth”; theories explain, predict, and allow for control of a situation

• Social constructivist: Reality is not objective but socially constructed by people as • Social constructivist: Reality is not objective but socially constructed by people as

they interact with others and their environments; “truth” is relative to the

individual or situation, not objective or shared by all

• Postmodern: What is accepted as “truth” and “reality” is determined by those in

power to further their own interests and neglects the perspectives of those without

power, and all human systems (such as organizations) are characterized by

domination and oppression

These are Bess & Dee’s three families and appear throughout the literature on theory and

research, but some authors suggest others families as well.

These terms may be familiar to those of you who’ve had a research foundations course and

may not be familiar to those who haven’t. Knowing the distinctions is not essential for this

class. But knowing which “family” you gravitate towards can help you in choosing theories

for the situation you’re facing. E.g., your personal philosophy may align with postmodern

theories, but if you’re working in a very traditional, top-down organization, or one where

hard data is valued in making decisions, you may need to look for more positivistic theories

if you’re hoping to formulate a strategy that others will buy into—have to speak their

language, and postmodern language may alienate your audience.

END BY 6:45

15

TOTAL ACTIVITY TIME: 20 MINUTES (start 6:45, end 7:05)

Groups:

Divide into groups by counting off, in the interest of time

• 5 group option: 3 of 3 people and 2 of 4 people

• 4 group option: 3 groups of 4 people and 1 group of 5 people

Supplies:

Give each group a sheet of flipchart paper and a marker

Procedure:

Each group is given a theory, and they have 10 minutes to apply the theory (using

guiding questions on the slide) to the “adjunct dilemma” described in the Inside

Higher Ed article (which they already have from position paper)

After 10 minutes, bring groups back together and share

16

TOTAL TIME: 5 MINUTES (2 to explain, 2-3 to write)

We’d like some feedback from you on how class is going so far. This class is a two-way

street, so we’d like to know if we’re meeting your needs and expectations for learning in

this class, and what we could do differently to better meet them.

Take out a sheet of paper and take a minute or two to respond to these questions.

Can be anonymous, or include your name if you’d like, especially if you want us to follow up

with you.

17

week 4 theory · 2013. 4. 12. · total activity time: 10 min. (5:25-5:35) • pass out picture...

Documents