ASPECTS OF THEORY

DEVELOPMENT
ROBERTO N. PADUA
DAISY R. PALOMPON

TRAINING OUTLINE
LECTURE 1: THEORY
1.1 Some common terminologies
1.2 The Set of Assumptions or Axioms

 LECTURE 2: Propositions

Combining the assumptions to produce

propositions
LECTURE 3: Theory from Propositions
Developing theories from propositions
Falsifying a theory by using testable hypotheses
LECTURE 4: Writing a Theory Development
Paper

LECTURE 5: Writing for Publication

3.1 Standard Publication Formats
3.2 Standard Dissertation Formats for Theory
3.3 Writing and Reporting the Study
Requirements:
One short publishable paper.

LECTURE 1: WHAT IS A THEORY?

THEORY: is a set of interrelated constructs
(concepts), definitions, and propositions that
presents a systematic view of phenomena by
specifying relations among variables, with the
purpose of explaining, predicting, and
controlling the phenomena.
Keywords: Concepts, definitions, hypotheses,
propositions
Purposes: Explain, Predict or Control a
phenomenon

WHY STUDY THEORY

CONSTRUCTION?
Theory construction and development is a
requirement for doctoral dissertations as
specified under CHED Order No. 53, s.2007.
Theses are supposed to validate theories
while dissertations are supposed to develop
and validate theories.
New theories serve to preserve and further
the growth of a discipline. A discipline that has
no new theories will become extinct.

EXAMPLE OF A THEORY
There is a dead man ( a human rights lawyer) shot three times with four
wounds: a through-and-through shot on the palm of his hand going
straight through between the eyes, a wound at the back of his head, and a
gunshot wound through the anus. Going through the wounds, the
detective found that the palm and between-the-eye wound did not have
any gunpowder residue (GSR) but the wounds at the back of the head and
in the anus had sufficient amounts of GSR. These mean that the latter
wounds (the back of the head and the anal wounds) were close-range
wounds ( i.e. the shooter fired within mere inches from the points of entry).
The expensive watch of the victim was missing and deep scratches in the
left arm to the palm were found but no blood was observed indicating that
the watch had been taken post-mortem when the heart stopped pumping.
(from Angel Flight, Connelly (2002))

 We want to formulate a theory that would

narrow down the search for possible suspects.
We propose the following minimal set of
sufficient axioms:

THE SET OF ASSUMPTIONS

OR AXIOMS
Axiom 1. Gunshot wounds leave gunpowder shot residues.
Axiom 2. Close range shots leave more gunpowder residues
than long-range shots.
Axiom 3. Instantaneous death occur when the heart, lungs
or the head is hit.
Axiom 4. Gunshots that aim to ridicule rather than to kill
are aimed at non-vital organs of the body.
Axiom 5. Crime perpetrators behave predictably according
to human instincts.

PROPOSITIONS FROM ASSUMPTIONS

Firing Sequence
From the observations given, we deduce that
the first shot was a long range shot and fatal.
We write this out as a proposition:
Proposition 1. The first shot was a long-range
shot and fatal.

PROOF OF THE FIRST PROPOSITION

The first shot cannot be the one inflicted at the back of
the head because that would have been fatal.
Moreover, excessive amounts of GSR was found on this
wound indicating a close range shot by Axiom 2. The
palm and between-the-eye wounds indicate that these
were from a long range shot because of the small
amount of GSR noted. Assume that the first shot was
the back of the head shot, then the victim would have
died instantaneously. Then, it makes no sense for the
suspect to deliver a long range-shot aimed at the head
(between the eyes) because that , too, would be fatal.
Therefore, the first shot was the long-range shot hitting
through the palm of the victim (in a defensive stanch)
straight between the eyes.

 Could the first shot be the anal wound? If the first shot
were the anal wound, then the victim would still be
alive by Axiom 3. This was delivered at close range
because of the amount of GSR found. Then, that means
that the next shot would have to be the back-of-thehead shot because the other possibility (the long range
shot) would require a ridiculous move on the part of
the suspect: running from a wounded man and then
shooting at a distance, and then going back to deliver
the back-of-the-head shot. Hence, the firing sequence
if the first shot was the anal wound would be:

anal shotback-of-the-head shotlong range

shot.

 But this runs counter to common sense, upon

inflicting a fatal shot at the back of the head,
there is no more point in performing a longrange fatal shot. Thus, the anal wound could
not be the first shot.
Since both the anal shot and back-of-the-head
shot are eliminated as the initial shots, then
we are left with only one possibility: the long
range shot which is also fatal.

 Proposition 2. The correct firing sequence is:

long range shot back-of-the-head shot anal shot

(CAN YOU PROVE THIS PROPOSITION BASED

ON THE AXIOMS AND PROPOSITION 1???)

Narrowing the List of Possible

Suspects
Knowing the firing sequence allows us to narrow
down the list of possible suspects for the crime. If we
do not narrow down the list of suspects and assume
a random killing, then we would have to consider
millions of possible perpetrators.
Proposition 3. The correct firing sequence shows
that the crime is a crime of rage. It is , therefore, not
a random killing.

Proof of proposition 3
The last shot was the anal shot which was no
longer necessary because the man was
already dead. This means that whoever was
the perpetrator had anger issues against the
dead human rights lawyer by Axiom 4. Hence,
this was crime of rage.

 Proposition 4. The crime did not involve hold up nor

theft.
Proof:
There was evidence of theft because the mans watch
was missing. However, the watch was taken postmortem thus eliminating the possibility of a hold up.
Since no blood was observe on the mans left arm as a
result of forcibly taking the watch, then this means that
the watch was taken long after the heart had stopped
pumping. The killer would not have waited long at the
scene of the crime for the heart to stop pumping and
then remove the watch since his/her first instinct would
be to flee the scene of the crime by Axiom 5. Thus,
whoever killed the lawyer did not take the watch.

 Proposition 5. The killer is a skilled marksman

and have had training on the use of guns.
This is an obvious proposition given that the
first shot was a long range shot and still hit the
target (between-the-eyes) accurately.

 Proposition 6. The killer and the victim know

each other.
Proof:
By proposition 3, the crime is a crime of rage.
The killer hated the lawyer. A person does not
hate another person if he does not know that
person by Axiom 5. Therefore, the killer and
the victim must know each other.

 Main Theory
All the propositions lead to the following main
theory:
Theory: The killer is a person known to the
victim personally, has an outstanding issue
with the victim, has no need for money and
has sufficient training in marksmanship.

Given this theory, we can now proceed as follows: List down all the acquaintances of
the victim. From this list, enumerate those with known issues against the victim (this
would be smaller subset of the first set). From the preceding list, enumerate all those
who are going to gain most from the death of the victim (this would further delimit the
previous set). Finally, from this last list enumerate all those with trai ning on
marksmanship and shooting.

Acquaintance

With issues against the victim

Gains most from death

Skilled shooter

FIGURE: Schematic Diagram of the Main Theory

Knowi ng that the human rights lawyer dealt with police brutality cases, the
obvious starti ng point satisfyi ng all the criteria above would be the police officers
with issues against the lawyer.

DEDUCTIVE THEORY DEVELOMENT PROCESS

ASSUMPTIONS OR AXIOMS

PROPOSITIONS

MAIN THEORIES AND SUB-THEORIES

TESTABLE HYPOTHESES

CHARACTERISTICS OF A THEORY

1. ABSTRACTNESS
Abstract concepts are independent of a specific
time and place. Because scientific statements
must predict future events, they cannot be
specific to past events. Research Scientists prefer
theories that are as general as possible to time
and
place.
Abstract concepts are independent of specific
circumstances or conditions. This independence
permits efficiency in understanding and
predicting future events.

 2. RELEVANCE
Empirical relevance refers to meeting two
conditions of observation:
1. Theories must be falsifiable. The distinguishing
feature of science, in contrast with other
epistemologies, is that its statements can, in
principle, be rejected through observation.
2. Theories must be supported by observations.
When theories receive strong empirical support,
then we gain confidence in them, which allows us
to build safe bridges, send satellites into orbit,
design effective crime prevention programs, etc.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IN THEORY DEVELOPMENT

DURHEIM-QUINE PRINCIPLE:
There are infinitely many theories that could explain
the same set of data or observations.
Example: We all observe that the sun rises in the East
and sets in the West. But:
A. Some theorized that the earth is flat while others
theorized otherwise;
B. Some theorized that the earth is the center of the
universe, while others believed that the sun is the
center of the universe.

THEORY VERSUS LAW

1. A Theory is a tentative explanation of an
observed phenomenon. It can be proven true or
false in the future. But, for as long as there is no
evidence falsifying the theory, it remains the only
reasonable explanation for the phenomenon.
2. A Law such as Newtons Laws of Motion is a
final explanation of an observed phenomenon. It
cannot be proven false now or in the near future.

LECTURE 2: METHODS OF ARRIVING AT A THEORY

There are two methods for Theory Construction and
Development:
1. The Inductive Approach: where we first observe data
and produce hypotheses from them, then build
propositions and finally to a theory;
2. The Deductive Approach: where we use the
principles of logic and axiomatic systems to build a
theory, identify propositions from the theory and then
establish testable hypotheses.
We shall first explore the Deductive Approach here.

Main Elements to Consider

SUMMARY: Recall the human rights lawyer problem.

1. We were given a problem situation in which a theory is

needed. (Who killed the human rights lawyer?)
2. We developed a minimal set of sufficient axioms or selfevident truths as bases for our propositions.
3. We deduce a series of propositions based on the axioms
and the given information.
4. We combined all the propositions to develop a main
theory (which narrowed down the list of suspects for the
crime).

1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM SITUATION

WHERE A THEORY IS NEEDED
You must clearly define the problem. Do you
wish to formulate a theory about nursing care
for the elderly? Do you wish to explain why
students of the same mental ability perform
differently in school?
A clear problem definition guides you in the
search for your assumptions, propositions and
your theory as a whole.

2. Searching the Literature for Axioms

or Assumptions
In qualitative or deductive theory development,
your main source of assumptions are results of past
studies or authoritative literature on the subject.
Axioms or assumptions are statements that you do
not need to prove because they are not debatable
and are always true.

 Often, we assume certain things even if they

are not always true. In such cases, make sure
that you have sufficient evidence to
demonstrate their validity.
Remember that:
The strength of your theory is as good as the
weakest assumption you have made.

FROM ARROGANCE-COMPETENCE...
It can be rooted in the past: an out-of-shape,
fast-food addict with a glorious, football
youth. (Katz, 2007)
Axiom 1: People build their arrogance from
different foundations.

 Arrogance is one of the seven basic character flaws or

negative personality traits. We all have the potential
for arrogant tendencies, but if they become an
enduring, dominant pattern then one is said to have a
chief feature of arrogance. (Bion, 1967). The positive
aspect of arrogance is called pride while the negative
aspect is called vanity. The exact opposite of
arrogance is self-deprecation.
Axiom 2. All people have the potential for arrogant
tendencies but it is normally not their chief feature.

 Arrogance is a way of manipulating others perceptions of

yourself in order to avoid taking a hit to your self-esteem.
In this case, however, the basic strategy is to get others to
see you as special, perfect or flawless diverting attention
from your ordinary imperfections, weaknesses and failings
and thereby keeping your self-esteem artificially
inflated. Many people bristle at arrogance, quickly asserting
themselves or rejecting the speaker. Others must suffer
quietly as the arrogant person is in a position of power.
Some take a person's arrogance as a signal of importance.
(Katz, 2007)
Axiom 3: Arrogance is a compensatory mechanism to keep
ones self-esteem artificially inflated or intact.

 Axiom 4. Organizations , in general, benefit from a mix of proper

levels of arrogance and high levels of competence.

Finally, the level of a persons job competence is strongly correlated

with his cognitive intelligence. Keeping attitude constant, several
studies have shown that highly intelligent people tend to be more
competent than less intellectually gifted ones. It is when attitude is
factored in that one sees aberrant results like a highly intelligent
person manifesting poor job competence.(OBoyle et al., 2010)

Axiom 5. Job competence is directly related to a persons cognitive

intelligence keeping the emotional quotient constant

WORKSHOP 1
1. Choose a problem situation in your own field
of interest.
1.1 Cull out at least five (5) assumptions or
axioms that you can use to derive an
explanation (theory) to the problem situation
you have identified.

LECTURE 3: PROPOSITIONS

Propositions are logical statements that flow

from the assumptions or previously proved
propositions.
Propositions are true provided that the
assumptions from which they were based were
true.
Propositions need proof.
The proof consists of showing that the
proposition is a logical, inescapable conclusion
from the assumptions or previously proved
propositions.

 Proposition 6. The killer and the victim know

each other.
Proof:
By proposition 3, the crime is a crime of rage.
The killer hated the lawyer. A person does not
hate another person if he does not know that
person by Axiom 5. Therefore, the killer and
the victim must know each other.

 Propositions are little statements which,

when taken together, builds a theory or a
complete explanation of a phenomenon.
The usual problem encountered by a
researcher is that of determining what
logically flows from the assumptions?

NON-SEQUITURS
Our everyday language is filled with nonsequiturs or that which does not follow.

Example:
If it rains then I will bring an umbrella.
Non-Sequitur:
It did not rain, therefore, I will not bring an
umbrella.

WHAT PROPOSITIONS ???

Axiom 1: Long lines of queue are observed in
the cashiers office every enrolment.
Axiom 2: Payments at the cashiers office are
manually processed and it takes about 10
minutes for each transaction to be completed.
Axiom 3: Computers can calculate and process
100 times faster than human beings.
Axiom 4: An average of about 500 students
are served by the Cashiers office daily.

WORKSHOP 2
Go back to your topic and the list of axioms
you have enumerated:
Write down at least five (5) propositions that
you think logically flow from the assumptions
and which build an explanation of the
phenomenon in question.

LECTURE 4: BUILDING A THEORY

The propositions are the building blocks for
the development of a theory.
We combine the propositions in some way
and through this combination, we attempt to
explain the phenomenon under consideration.

EXAMPLE:
Here are the propositions we obtained from the human rights
lawyer problem:
Proposition 1. The first shot was a long-range shot and fatal.
Proposition 2. The correct firing sequence is:
long range shot back-of-the-head shot anal shot
Proposition 3. The correct firing sequence shows that the crime is a
crime of rage.It is , therefore, not a random killing.
Proposition 4. The crime did not involve hold up nor theft.
Proposition 5. The killer is a skilled marksman and have had training
on the use of guns.
Proposition 6. The killer and the victim know each other.

FIRST THEORY
From these six(6) propositions, we have a
FIRST THEORY:
Theory: The killer is a person known to the
victim personally, has an outstanding issue
with the victim, has no need for money and
has sufficient training in marksmanship

SECOND THEORY
Secondarily, we find that:

SECOND THEORY:
Knowing that the human rights lawyer dealt
with police brutality cases, the obvious
starting point satisfying all the criteria above
would be the police officers with issues
against the lawyer.

WORKSHOP 3:
From the list of axioms and propositions you
made for your topic, write down at least
two(2) theories to explain the phenomenon
under consideration.

LECTURE 5: TESTABLE HYPOTHESES

FROM THE THEORIES
The theories you formulated are tentative explanations
to the phenomenon you are considering.
You will need to validate your theory by testing
hypotheses that logically flow from it.
Hypotheses consist of concrete and measurable
variables linked together whereas your theory is
abstract.

 Normally, we assail the assumptions from which all of

the theories emanated:
Axiom 1. Gunshot wounds leave gunpowder shot
residues.
Axiom 2. Close range shots leave more gunpowder
residues than long-range shots.
Axiom 3. Instantaneous death occur when the heart,
lungs or the head is hit.
Axiom 4. Gunshots that aim to ridicule rather than to
kill are aimed at non-vital organs of the body.
Axiom 5. Crime perpetrators behave predictably
according to human instincts.

RESTATE THE AXIOMS AS HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1. Gunshot wounds leave gunpowder
shot residues.
Hypothesis 2. Close range shots leave more
gunpowder residues than long-range shots.
Hypothesis 3. Instantaneous death occur when
the heart, lungs or the head is hit.
Hypothesis 4. Gunshots that aim to ridicule
rather than to kill are aimed at non-vital organs of
the body.
Hypothesis 5. Crime perpetrators behave
predictably according to human instincts.

 Note that hypotheses 1-3 are easily tested.

Hypotheses 4 and 5 are more difficult to test.
Design a study that would test hypotheses 4
and 5.

WORKSHOP 5:
From the theory and the set of axioms you
made, write down testable hypotheses.
Design a study that would test all the
hypotheses you have endorsed.

FORMAT FOR PAPER

TITLE
Authors

ABSTRACT
(no more than 150 words)
Keywords:
1.0 Introduction
(no more than 8 paragraphs or no more than 700 words. Incorporate the study
objectives here)
2.0 Brief Literature Review
(review at least 5 studies here; no more than 800 words)
3.0 Research Design and Research Framework
(discuss the methodology that you followed here; brief discussion of the research
framework)
4.0 Results
(Present the set of assumptions and where they were derived, present the propositions,
and the theories)
5.0 Theory Validation
(state the hypotheses to be tested and the corresponding design to test them. Present
the results of the hypotheses testing).
6.0 References