Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research: An Investigative Study in the Philippines

Full text

65
International Forum
Vol. 18, No. 2
October 2015
pp. 65-82
FEATURE
Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research:
An Investigative Study in the Philippines
Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
Abstract. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of
theoretical contribution present in the dissertations and theses of the
education and business departments of a private institution of higher
education in the Philippines. One of the aspects of the mission of the
institution is to produce individuals who excel in research. As such, it
is critical to the development and the betterment of the institution in
terms of pursuing its mission to develop leaders that excel in
research. Therefore, it is our belief that this study particularly
informs the institution and its constituents regarding the nature of
research output taking place at that institution. The findings of this
study suggested that most of the studies done in the business and
education departments of the institution were weak in theoretical
contributions. Additionally, it was found that studies that were
categorized as high in theoretical contribution had increased in the
recent years.
Keywords: Graduate research, theoretical contribution, trends in
research, content analysis, descriptive research,
Philippines
Introduction
The purpose of a dissertation has always alternated between two views: the
dissertation as a training instrument for the researcher and the dissertation as an
original contribution to the body of knowledge (Berelson, 1960). Duke and Beck
(1999), however, argued that the dissertation must be both—a contribution to
knowledge as well as a training instrument for the research. This multi-purpose
view of the dissertation continues to exist (see Yeager, 2008 for discussion).
Thus, any graduate school should consider the purpose of the dissertations in the

66 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
training of their students. In fact, the Council of Graduate Schools in the United
States (1991) stipulated that doctoral dissertations should have the following
features:
(1) Revelation of the student’s ability to analyze, interpret and synthesize
information, (2) demonstration of the student’s knowledge of the literature
relating to the project or at least the ability to discuss previous studies on which
the dissertation is built, (3) description of the methods and procedures used, (4)
presentation of the results in a sequential and logical manner, and (5) display of
the student’s ability to discuss fully and coherently the meaning of the results.
The five points as stipulated by the Council of Graduate Schools in the United
States culminate in the five chapters of the dissertation in its traditional format—
introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion. In addition
to this traditional format, there is also a four-chapter dissertation format, but the
choice of format is largely institution-, department-, or chair-specific (Joyner,
Rouse, & Glatthom, 2013). It is also important to note that the Council of
Graduate Schools asserted that the dissertation is the beginning of one’s scholarly
work and not its culmination. Thus, they concluded that the dissertation research
should provide students with hands-on, directed experience in the primary
research methods of the discipline, and should prepare students for the type of
research or scholarship that will be expected of them after they receive the
doctoral degree (Cimini, 2011).
Arguably, the above five points somewhat miss the second purpose of the
dissertation; that is the original contribution to the body of knowledge or theory
that is the basic aim of science (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Lykken, 1968; Roll-
Hansen, 2009). This disconnect is undesirable because the dissertation should be
not a training instrument but also bring some contribution to the knowledge base.
Hence, it is critical that graduate schools be able to train students in both—to
become a researcher and to contribute to the body of knowledge. Hambrick
(2007) argued that one of the basic questions asked in research is about its
theoretical contribution. The importance of theory to scientists is critical (for
discussion, see Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007) and it is argued in this paper that
research at the graduate level should have theoretical contribution because it is the
highest academic experience in terms of qualification.
Literature Review
The review of the literature typically provides direction for a research study
(Creswell, 2013). It does so by providing an understanding of the topic being
investigated and justifies the research problem. The subsequent paragraphs
discuss the literature related to this study and finally the questions guiding the
study are presented.

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 67
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Theoretical Contribution
There are several definitions of theory in literature, yet there exists no
consensus. Attempts, however, have led scholars to define theory in terms of
relationships between variables and others have defined them in terms of
narratives and accounts (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007). It is also argued that a
theory must contain four elements: identify factors, establish relationships, build
upon a sound theoretical framework, and be generalizable (Whetten, 1989).
Additionally, a theoretical contribution constitutes using original insightful
perspectives to advance knowledge that is useful for practice (Corley & Gioia,
2011). Put simply, a research paper may be considered a contribution when it
contains two elements, originality and utility. Consequently, this study
conceptualizes theoretical contribution as the ability of research to have
originality and utility.
Taxonomy for Determining Theoretical Contribution
Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007) developed a taxonomy in order to
determine the theoretical contribution of published research. This taxonomy has
two dimensions: theory building that is on the Y-Axis and theory testing that is on
the X Axis. These dimensions combined together have five different
classifications: reporters, qualifiers, testers, builders, and expanders
(see Figure 1). It is critical to state upfront that all the different kinds of studies as
classified by the taxonomy are important for they play different roles in the body
of knowledge. The distinction among them, however, is not in their utility but in
terms of their theoretical contribution. Therefore, since this taxonomy is used to
determine the theoretical contribution of the theses and dissertations of the
graduate school in the institution under study, it will be discussed at length
according to the various points in the taxonomy on the two dimensions.

68 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
Figure 1: Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan’s Taxonomy of theoretical contribution.
Reporter in terms of theory building. A study that is classified as a reporter
is one that has the lowest level of both theory building and theory testing. In terms
of theory building, these are studies that attempt to: replicate previously
demonstrated effects (point 1 of Y-Axis) or examine effects that have been the
subject of prior theorizing (point 2 of Y-Axis). Thus replication studies are
important because they establish external validity or generalizability (Vogt &
Gardner, 2012) and also the reliability of the findings. Replication studies,
however, concentrate on new settings and do not contribute any new construct or
relationships to be examined other than those examined before. As such the
theoretical contribution is low.
Further, studies that examine the effects that have been the subject of prior
theorizing are important because they lead to new avenues of theory-driven
research. These studies are testing, however, prior theorizing. Therefore, in terms
of theory building, they do not add any new construct or relationship to be
examined. As such, the theoretical contribution is low.

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 69
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Reporter in terms of theory testing. In terms of theory testing (X Axis), a
study is a reporter if it is inductive or grounds predictions with logical
speculations (point 1 of the X axis) or grounds predictions with references to past
findings (point 2 of the X axis). Studies that are inductive or ground predictions
with logical speculation are those studies that actually begin with the reality and
end with propositions (Monette, DeJong, Sullivan, & Hilton, 2013). In other
words, these are studies that do not delve into the body of knowledge to begin
with a priori hypotheses. Such studies are useful in terms of generating new
constructs or relationships. Such studies, however, have low confirmatory
abilities. Further, studies that ground predictions with references to past findings
are those studies that rely on extant literature to ground a priori hypotheses. The
grounding, however, consists solely of lists of references to past findings without
explication of the causal logic that might explain those findings. As such, these
studies are those that Sutton and Staw (1995) describe as ones in which
“references are sometimes used like a smoke screen to hide the absence of theory”
(p. 373). This means that a recital of past findings can convince the reader that
the same sort of relationships can be found but the understanding of why those
relationships might exist would still be lacking. In additions to this, Bacharach
(1989) supported that logical theories provide clear directions for the scholars in
executing the empirical testing of the constructs.
Qualifiers in terms of theory building. In order for a study to be classified
as a qualifier, it must have moderate levels of theory testing and theory building.
Along the line of theory building (Y axis), a qualifier is one that strengthens
previously established relationships either by introducing a moderator or a
mediator (point 3 of the Y axis). In other words, it introduces a new variable in
order to explain how an already-existing relationship or process unfurls. Although
adding another variable or two to a previously-established model or relationship is
moderate in terms of theory building, it may not significantly alter the logic
central to an existing theory (Whetten, 1989). Studies that fall under this category
use arguments based on literature to qualify relationships or processes that have
been established in previous studies. The theoretical contribution of such studies
is moderate as they introduce new variables to add to the understanding of an
established relationship.
Qualifiers in terms of theory testing. A study is called a qualifier in terms
of theory testing (X axis) when predictions are made solely using arguments
based on extant literature (point 3 of the X axis). These studies endeavor to
explain why a process or relationship exists by means of logic made available in
past research. Such supply of logic is useful as it helps readers understand the
justification for a prediction in the light of existing literature. Such a study,
however, may not represent a true theory, as the arguments have not been
significantly developed. They are moderate in their ability to test a theory as
predictions are grounded in existing models and diagrams. Such studies typically

70 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
have models that emerge based on literature that is then tested on a population to
test the relationships. Studies of this nature are important as they indicate
mediators and moderators that regulate certain relationships (Baron & Kenny,
1986). Consequently, these studies can be useful for both researchers and
practitioners in understanding what causes certain relationships.
Expanders in terms of theory building. In terms of theory building (Y axis),
an expander study has the same characteristics of a builder. As such, they place
emphasis on processes, constructs, or relationships that have not been theorized
earlier. In other words, these are studies that examine previously unexplored
relationships (point 4 of the Y axis) or introduce a new construct if not
significantly reshaping an existing one (point 5 of the Y axis). In other words, the
nature of theoretical contribution for these studies is significantly high. Studies
that are categorized as expanders contribute to building a theory and introducing
new constructs (Klassen & Whybark, 1999), and as a result, they can alter the
direction of thinking in the field of research.
Expanders in terms of theory testing. Studies that are termed as expanders
are also generally high in their ability to test a theory that was theorized earlier.
They are similar in characteristics to the testers; and as such, they ground
predictions using existing models, diagrams, or figures (point 4 of the X axis) or
based on existing theories (point 5 of the X axis). These studies often draw upon
theories established earlier to justify predictions made. Typically these studies
make significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge and, therefore
are important research studies.
Builders. Studies that are significantly high in theory building and low in
testing may be classified as builders. A study is a builder when, in terms of theory
building (Y axis), it examines relationships and processes that have been
previously unexplored (point 4 of the Y axis). Still further, a study may be
classified as a builder when it introduces a new construct or conceptualizes an
existing one in a new direction (point 5 of the Y axis).
Builders offer a marked departure from existing work that can considerably
alter future thinking. A field may greatly be impacted as a result of the ideas
generated from studies of this nature (Conrad & Serlin, 2006). Although such
studies are desirable to advance theory, their novelty may come under question as
to whether they are really new or just old ideas presented in newer ways.
Testers. Sutton and Staw (1995) explained true theory to be an explanation of
underlying processes that go beyond models and diagrams in explaining the
relationships, using closely-related concepts and logical arguments. Studies that
fall under this category are generally high in testing theory and low in building
theory. In terms of theory testing (X axis), these studies ground predictions with
existing models, diagrams, or figures; or they ground predictions in existing
theories (point 5 of the X axis).

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 71
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Although testers are low in their ability to build theory, they are high in the
degree of testing. Hence, they may be deemed useful as they help in qualifying
theories and propositions. Testers have the ability to enhance the reliability of a
theory and therefore are useful.
Taking this taxonomy into account, the goal of the study was to investigate
the nature of research done in the departments of education and business in an
institution of higher education. In doing so, the intent was to inform the institution
of how well the research in the departments under investigation fared in
contributing to theory. To achieve this goal, the following questions guided the
study.
1. What are the areas being researched in the two departments of the
selected institution?
2. Based on Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan’s (2007) taxonomy of
theoretical contribution, what are the types of research being carried
out in the two departments of the selected institution?
3. What is the trend in the theoretical contribution of the research being
done in the two departments of the institution under examination?
Methodology
This study was largely descriptive in nature. The purpose of a descriptive
research is to describe what exists. Plainly, descriptive research reveals the nature
of the data. As directed by the questions guiding the study, the- purpose of this
study was to describe the nature of graduate research—thesis and dissertation—
pertaining to their extent of theoretical contribution. This study was a result of
interest in a taxonomy developed by Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007) to assess
the theoretical contributions of research articles and an awareness of the need for
graduate research to be effective in its theoretical contribution. The taxonomy was
therefore used to assess the data (discussed in the next section) for this study. The
data collection procedures, analysis and results are further discussed in
subsequent sections.
Data Collection
This study was quantitative in nature and did not constitute human
participants. The data for this study was textual and was taken from dissertations
and theses collected from education and business departments of the institution. In
order to collect the data for this study, permission was secured form the institution
and the library was contacted for the access of the theses and dissertations of the
two departments included in this study. As a result, access to dissertations and
theses from 1998 to 2013 was made available to the researchers. When the sample
needed is large in comparison to the population, a technique known as complete

72 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
enumeration may be used (Cochran, 2007). Therefore, all the dissertations and
theses were included as data for the study, which were further coded and
analyzed.
Analysis
This research was a descriptive study that purposed to describe the nature of
dissertations and theses in terms of their theoretical contribution. The nature of
the data determined that the study employs the content analysis technique to
analyze the data. Further, because the study was primarily quantitative, it used an
approach known as the quantitative analysis of qualitative data (Morgan, 1993).
Content analysis may either be approached inductively or deductively (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005). In the case of this study pre-determined categories were used in
the data analysis and hence, a deductive approach. Therefore, the content of each
study was analyzed and characterized based on the taxonomy as presented in the
literature review.
Based on the axes in Figure 1, the data from each dissertation and these were
coded. In order to maintain reliability in coding, both authors coded the data
together. When coding theory building, it was examined if the study had an
element of novelty to it. In other words, studies that defined a new term that was
not the subject of earlier studies were considered novel. Further, when a new
relationship was established that was not the result of existing research, it was
coded along theory building. Also, when a mediator of an existing relationship
was the focus of prior research it was coded as replicating previously examined
findings.
When coding theory testing, each study was examined to see whether
predications made were based on models or theories emerging from previous
research. Coding was based simply on whether a study was substantially using
established theories to ground predictions and whether the model was developed
inductively without explicating a priori hypotheses. The earlier “what” were
coded as high in theory testing while the latter was coded as low in theory testing.
A description of these categories is presented in Table 1.
Data were entered into MS Excel 2007 and coded based on the categories
presented in Table 1. Graphs were then generated for the purpose of presenting
the findings descriptively. Findings are presented and discussed in subsequent
sections.

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 73
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Table 1
Description of the Categories Used in the Analysis of Data
Category
Description
Reporters
These studies are low in theory building and testing. They
replicate previous studies and their hypotheses are typically
in reference to past findings. Usually these studies are
carried out in reference to findings that are conflicting in past
research.
Qualifiers
These are studies with moderate levels of both theory testing
and building. Using arguments that are deep rooted in
existing literature, these studies qualify relationships
previously established. Typically these studies introduce
newer ways of looking at existing findings.
Testers
These studies have high levels of theory testing but low
levels of theory building. They test models and propositions
generated from previous research. They typically follow a
deductive approach and test hypotheses derived from
existing theory.
Builders
Studies which are high in theory building and low in theory
testing fall in this category. Mostly employing an inductive
approach, builder studies introduce new constructs,
processes and relationships. These studies are not based on
previous research and extrapolate their findings purely from
data.
Expanders
Expanders are high in both theory testing and building. They
mostly focus on new constructs, process, and relationships
not previously explored. Additionally, they test exiting
theory. In doing both, they tend to advance existing
literature significantly
Results
For the purpose of this study, a total of 79 theses and dissertations—all the
studies made available by the institution’s library—were analyzed. The dependent
variables that were studied in each research are tabulated below.

74 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
Table 2
Dependent Variables in the Studies Being Investigated
Year
Dependent Variables Under study
1998
Quality efforts, organizational commitment*, spiritual maturity,
organizational commitment*, teaching of thinking skills.
1999
Teachers empowerment, students performance***
2000
Student’s performance***, participation in decision making, job
satisfaction**.
2001
Students’ sense of community, organizational conflict, students
learning styles, academic achievements.
2002
Effective communication, management performance***.
2003
Job satisfaction**, academic performance***, performance in
schools***.
2004
Student academic writing, customer relationship management.
2005
Work values, character traits, level of need and perception of
mentoring, academic performance, satisfaction in life, leadership
style and its attractiveness
2006
Marital satisfaction, Teaching effectiveness, Employees' ranking of
motivators
2007
Students' intention on health, reading performance, strategic
management implementation, management leadership behaviour,
attitudes and intentions of students towards software piracy,
leadership style of IT administrators
2008
Teachers’ motivation, school reputation, habits of the mind,
students' performance, teaching performance***, school
performance***, organizational health, doctoral student
satisfaction.
2009
Professional effectiveness, school underachievement, effective
online instructional design
2010
Integrated Ghanian Adventist curriculum, perception and attitude
changes to the STEP program
2011
Work values, Teaching performance***, Organizational
performance***, Turnover intention, Job satisfaction**, Server
virtualization adoption, Institutional value
2012
Student's performance***, Profitability, Organizational citizenship
behaviour, Employee innovative behaviour, Sustainable growth
2013
Classroom management, Organizational silence, Employee
engagement, Academic achievement, College completion intention
*strands in commitment, **strands in satisfaction, ***strands in performance

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 75
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
It was revealed that strands of commitment (*), satisfaction (**), and
performance (***) were among the most widely studied constructs in the
institution. Additionally, it was found that although there seems to be a variety in
the dependent variables, upon closer examination, it could be concluded that they
were more an alteration of terminology as opposed to examination of new
constructs. In other words, research studies tended to use different terminology
but essentially studying different dimensions or strands of the same construct
limiting major deviations in topics being studied.
One of the reasons for such limited deviations in topics could be attributed to
research interests of the advisers. It may be possible that the interests of advisers
to a certain degree influence the researcher’s choice of topic. Additionally, it
could be that when searching for a topic, the researchers were influenced by the
topics of previous researchers in the institution.
Further, the data for the study was analyzed for trends. One way of examining
trends is to look at the frequency distribution of reporters, qualifiers, builders,
testers and expanders from 1998 to 2013. The data in Figure 2 reflect the
distribution of research studies based on their categories. Such presentation of
data provides a comprehensive understanding of the data and is helpful when
making conclusions.
The distribution suggests that there was a trend in each category. The research
studies categorized as reporters (studies with the lowest level of theory building
and theory testing). These increased until 2007 but decreased thereafter. This
trend is represented in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Distribution in each category from 1998-2013

76 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
Figure 3. Trend in reporters, qualifiers, builders, and testers.

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 77
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Further, it points to the gradual increase in both testers (studies that are high in the
degree of testing theory) and builders (studies that are high in the degree of theory
building). Although both indicate a gradual increase, it must be noted that for 10
years, there were no testers, and it was not until 2009 that builders came into the
picture (see Figure 2). The trend in each is represented in Figure 3. It is also
evident that there is a decent distribution of qualifiers (studies that are moderate in
their levels of theory building and theory testing) with an absence of any in the
years 2004-2006. It must be borne in mind that there are only four categories
illustrated in Figure 3 because of the absence of expander studies in the data.
Another important finding of this study was in terms of both the departments
of business and education. The data seems to indicate that the highest number of
theses and dissertations in the education department fell in the category of
reporters while the least were builders (see Figure 4). A similar distribution was
indicated in the theses of the same school. On the other hand, the data from the
school of business indicate the highest number of research studies fell in the
category of reporters. In terms of dissertations of the same school, the majority of
the studies were qualifiers with one builder and one tester.
Figure 4: Distribution of Each Category in Both Departments

78 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
The findings of the study indicated that there were more research studies—
both dissertations and theses—generated in the school of education than in the
school of business. This could be attributed to the fact that the business program
was a recent addition to the institution as compared to the other programs that
existed way before. Further, it was found that no thesis or dissertations fell in the
“expander” category. A reason for this could simply be because of the fact that
doctoral dissertations are not necessarily about moving mountains but rather
bringing a small crumb to a larger body of knowledge that advances over time
(Letiche & Lightfoot, 2014). The work for a true expander is a lot more than can
be accomplished in a single doctoral dissertation; hence, its absence. Further,
Figure 4 suggests that most of the studies that are high in theoretical contributions
are doctoral dissertations. This is normal because a Master’s thesis is more often
tailored for the labor markets and therefore is less expected to have high levels of
theory contribution (Eggins, 2008).
Additionally, the study also showed that the theoretical contribution in the
years that were investigated was rather weak considering the number of reporters
and qualifiers as compared to the number of testers and builders. The trend lines
in Figure 3, however, indicate that that there is a gradual increase in testers and
builders while a gradual decrease in reporters and qualifiers is also evident. There
could be several factors contributing to such a trend. First, it is possible that the
expertise in terms of methodology was limited in the earlier years. Second, it may
be that resources in terms of related technology, human resources, administrative
support, and expert knowledge were limited in the earlier years. Regardless of the
prior limitations, it is worthwhile to note that there is a positive trend in the level
of theoretical contribution of graduate research, which should be maintained in
order to enhance the institution’s capability of theory advancement.
Discussions
The findings reported in this study are important because they expand the
understanding of both theory building and theory testing. This knowledge should
be especially relevant to academia such as dissertation advisors, all students in
graduate schools, institutions leaders, and managers.
Although findings of this study indicate that theory-building practices have
improved in the recent years, more focus should be placed on improving theory
building practices in both business and education departments, especially in
dissertations. Both departments (business and education) should encourage
theory-building practices through training by means of course offerings or
periodic workshops. Overall, it is possible to strengthen theory expanding through
developing both theory testing and theory building among researchers in graduate
school settings.

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 79
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Additional research needs to investigate the validity of these suggestions.
Research should also examine additional variables that might promote theory
advancement in institutional settings.
Like most studies, this study is not short of limitations and weaknesses.
Consequently, this content analysis is limited to data provided by the office of the
institution and exclude dissertations and theses that are still in the process of
acquisition. It is also for this reason that some years have as less as two studies
(see Table 2). Additionally, the study was limited to the taxonomy developed by
Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007) and as such, it used only the categories
proposed by them to analyze the data in this study.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It was the purpose of this study to analyze the dissertations and theses of the
graduate school in a selected higher educational institution using the taxonomy
developed by Coloquitt and Zapatta-Phelan (2007). The study found that most of
the research studies done in the education and business departments of the
institution were weak in theoretical contribution. The trend analysis, however,
revealed that the categories of builders and testers, which were high in theoretical
contribution, have increased in number in the recent years. Additionally, it was
found that although topics were largely unique, a few of them were actually
repeated. It maybe important to point out that repeating a topic does not
necessarily mean repeating knowledge (Roberts, 2004). On the contrary, repeating
a topic could add a newer perspective to the same.
The recommendations made as a result of this study are made for both
researchers and practitioners. Future research may use the same taxonomy and
procedure to evaluate the theoretical contributions made by dissertations in an
online database or all the articles published in a particular journal. Also, future
researchers can expand the size of the taxonomy (more than five categories) to be
accurate and precise depending on the nature of the data employed in their
research. Further, if a similar study were to be carried out in other institutions,
researchers are recommend that it be done with a higher number of theses and
dissertations and that they be analyzed and reported separately.
Research advisors may use the taxonomy guide and evaluate the level of
theoretical contribution of their advisees. Journal editors or managers may use the
taxonomy as a tool to evaluate publications to ensure that the articles in some way
make theoretical contribution. Institutions of research may consider developing
strategies to increase the awareness of the importance each research study has in
making theoretical contribution.

80 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
References
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 51(6),
1173-1182.
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill
Cimini, M. (2011). Contributions to the meta theory structural operational
semantics (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Reykjavik University,
Iceland.
Cochran, W. G. (2007). Sampling techniques. (3rd ed). New Delhi, India: Wiley.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and
theory testing: A five-decade study of the academy of management journal.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281-1303. Retrieved from
https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMJ/ColquittZapataPhelan2007
.pdf
Conrad, C., & Serlin, R. (2006). The SAGE handbook for research in education:
Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
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. Retrieved from http://aom.org/uploadedfiles
/publications/amr/corleygioiabuildingtheory.pdf
Council of Graduate Schools. (1991). The role and nature of the doctoral
dissertation. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED331422.pdf
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative
formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-36.
Retrieved from http://bellcou.pbworks.com/f
/EducationAlternativeDissertationFormats.pdf
Eggins, H. (2008). Trends and issues in post-graduate education: A global
review. Dublin, Ireland: The UNESCO Forum on Higher Education,
Research and Knowledge.

Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research 81
October 2015, Vol. 18, No. 2
Joyner, R., Rouse, W., & Glatthorn, A. (2013). Writing the winning thesis or
dissertation: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much
of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346-1352.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Retrieved from
http://www.iisgcp.org/pdf/glssn/Supplemental_Reading_on_Coding_2.pdf
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. 2000. Foundations of behavioral research. Forth
Worth, TX: Harcourt.
Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental
technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(6), 599-615.
Letiche, H., & Lightfoot, G. (2014). The relevant PhD. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense.
Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research.
Psychological Bulletin, 70(3), 151-159. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026141
.Monette, D., DeJong, C., Sullivan, T., & Hilton, T. (2013). Applied social
research: Tool for the human services (9th ed). Belmont, CA: Cengage
Learning.
Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken.
Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112-121.
Roberts, C. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive
guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Rolls-Hansen, N. (2009). Why the distinction between basic (theoretical) and
applied (practical) research is important in the politics of science. Retrieved
from http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/concludedResearchProjects
/ContingencyDissentInScience/DP/DPRoll-HansenOnline0409.pdf
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 371-394.
Vogt, W., & Gardner, D. (2012). When to use what research design. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.

82 Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap & Abraham Mishika
International Forum
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Sandeep Lloyd Kachchhap, PhD
Independent Researcher
India
slkachchhap@gmail.com
Abraham Mishika, PhD
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies
Silang, Cavite, Philippines
mishika@aiias.edu