We usually base on well-established theories, which, in my opinion, could be referred to as "applied" theories (i.e. we apply/use these theories to build up our research hypotheses) to develop and test research hypotheses. E.g., based on Theory of Planned Behavior (here comes as an "applied" theory), we hypothesize that students' positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship will have a direct positive influence on their entrepreneurial intentions.
On the other hand, there are always the cases that even we cite several theories during the process of building research hypotheses, but we add new variables, which are not included in our "cited" theories. In this case, can we still say that we apply/base on several theories to develop our research hypotheses? For example, Can we say that based on two theories: Human Capital Theory, and Theory of Planned Behavior, we hypothesize that Entrepreneurship Education has positive effect on students' entrepreneurial intentions?
Then, how should we distinguish a "cited" theory from an "applied" theory in research papers?
Why is this overly important?
Whether the theory is directly applied or mostly used to provide perspective.
Whether the theory is expanded on.
Applied theory refers to theory that is directly applied while cited theory refers to theory that is cited by others.
Mahfuz Judeh is correct. I'm a psychologist, in my master's I study the theory of Public Health, but now, I apply the theory in my practical work. In behaviorism we could say, the study about contingences is theory and then applying this in autism is the applied behavior analysis
Dear Brian Barnard : I am asking this question as I want to distinguish articles which have "applied theories" from others which have "cited" theory (but it is not clear if they applied/used any theory to develop research the research hypotheses). Do you think that the former (i.e. articles with applied theories) are more trustable? Thank you for sharing your thought
I think it is firstly about argument or reasoning and then proof or findings.
One looks at the quality of reasoning, and then at the outcome - what came from the reasoning empirically.
I also think reasoning can be assessed independently in that you judge the quality thereof on its own grounds. The fact that it was empirically tested have some worth though in that it supports it. I will not stare myself blind at this though. And if something helps me make a good argument, i am not going to be too concerned about whether it was applied or not.
It is also helpful to contemplate why it was not applied to date.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude