Most of the time previous studies means exactly that: studies published were disseminated in the past that report results of research findings. This could mean the authors tested a specific hypothesis, test the tenets of the theory, or tried to answer a specific research question. For the most part studies are published in peer-reviewed journal articles, however research findings are also sometimes disseminated as standalone monographs, independent reports, or as books or chapters in books.
On the other hand, theories are proposed explanations of observed phenomena or relationships, usually based on some systematic analysis of the existing literature, or on the preponderance of evidence observed in case studies. To give you a concrete example, take a look at Kluger and DeNisi 1996 (Psychological Bulletin). This is a great example of both a previous study and a theory. In this paper, the author started by asking the research question does feedback always have a positive effect on performance? They did a meta-analysis of studies, and found that in approximately 40% of the cases the answer was no. This part of the paper contains empirical evidence, and would be considered reporting research findings. They then go on to review the research literature, summarizing and synthesizing what is known about feedback and how it works, and propose what they called "feedback intervention theory" to explain the conditions under which feedback works best in the conditions under which feedback doesn't work as well. This part of the paper is clearly the proposition of a theory. Last but not least, they test the tenets of the theory they have just proposed by conducting a second meta-analysis of the literature, and finding that many of the explanatory mechanisms they proposed in their theory are in fact responsible for the differences in feedback effectiveness observed in the literature. This last piece of the paper would also be considered reporting of research findings.
Hope that helps!
Depending on what you mean by "previous studies" the answer can be either yes or no.
Yes: If you refer to the theory and explanations that previous studies are supporting
No: l If you refer to the results of previous studies. Since theory is the explanation of a phenomenon/event/etc, the results themselves do not constitute an explanation and therefore would not be considered a theory.
Most of the time previous studies means exactly that: studies published were disseminated in the past that report results of research findings. This could mean the authors tested a specific hypothesis, test the tenets of the theory, or tried to answer a specific research question. For the most part studies are published in peer-reviewed journal articles, however research findings are also sometimes disseminated as standalone monographs, independent reports, or as books or chapters in books.
On the other hand, theories are proposed explanations of observed phenomena or relationships, usually based on some systematic analysis of the existing literature, or on the preponderance of evidence observed in case studies. To give you a concrete example, take a look at Kluger and DeNisi 1996 (Psychological Bulletin). This is a great example of both a previous study and a theory. In this paper, the author started by asking the research question does feedback always have a positive effect on performance? They did a meta-analysis of studies, and found that in approximately 40% of the cases the answer was no. This part of the paper contains empirical evidence, and would be considered reporting research findings. They then go on to review the research literature, summarizing and synthesizing what is known about feedback and how it works, and propose what they called "feedback intervention theory" to explain the conditions under which feedback works best in the conditions under which feedback doesn't work as well. This part of the paper is clearly the proposition of a theory. Last but not least, they test the tenets of the theory they have just proposed by conducting a second meta-analysis of the literature, and finding that many of the explanatory mechanisms they proposed in their theory are in fact responsible for the differences in feedback effectiveness observed in the literature. This last piece of the paper would also be considered reporting of research findings.
Hope that helps!
I agree with Sylvia's answer. I would like to add that when reviewing previous studies, one should assess the level of evidence that is provided.
The following editorial in THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY for example classifies types of studies according to the level of evidence.
1. Previous studies may have been reviews, meta studies or practical reporting, in which case they are not theory rich.
2. Your hypotheses do not necessarily have to come from previous studies. If this was so, there will never be a revolution in research.
3. Previous studies might be contradictory. In that case some theory need to be developed to overcome this impasse.
Previous studies can refer to many materials inclusive articles, conference proceedings, theses, monographs, books etc being published in the similar domain you are studying right now. These materials likely to contain research problem, research objectives, literature review on previous theoretical frameworks, hypotheses (if quantitative research), findings, discussions, conclusions etc.
Theory refers to the theoretical frameworks, empirical tested models etc. that your current study is trying to underpin on. Without them,the study is at risk and might not survive or staying afloat upon challenging / questioning by authority / scholars in the related domain.
Hypotheses building are derived from your current conceptual framework / research model and not from previous studies nor theoretical frameworks etc. However, your current conceptual framework or research model is adapted / derived / based on / underpinned on the previous theoretical frameworks etc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Organizational Psychology