Analysis and Evaluation of Frameworks and Theories

theory Derivation

Questions to consider before you get started reading this chapter:

· Are you seeking a way to generate a new organizing framework or theory about a research problem or clinical phenomenon?

· Are you interested in looking outside your immediate area of interest to see others who may have ideas that may inspire you?

Introductory Note:

If you have answered “yes” to the above two questions, then theory derivation may fit your needs. In theory derivation, the theorist creates a new theory by use of analogy to an existing theory. This strategy may be easy for nurses and other health care workers to grasp because analogy and metaphor frequently are employed in their teaching of patients and their families. Thus, the derivation strategies are very popular with our students because the strategies are intuitive and easy for them to grasp. A firm grasp of concept and statement derivation is useful to readers who wish to pursue theory derivation. As a result, readers are encouraged to read  Chapters 4 ,  5 , and  6  in tandem in order to grasp the overall derivation process. One note of caution: theorists may sometimes use the terminology of theory derivation when they simply mean theory development. In this book, we reserve the terminology of theory derivation for theories or models that are developed by use of analogy.

definitionn and Description

Some of the earliest foundations of derivation occurred in the 1960s in the field of education (Maccia, Maccia, & Jewett, 1963). We have drawn heavily on that work. Using analogy to obtain explanations or predictions about a phenomenon in one field from the explanations or predictions in another field is the basis for theory derivation (Maccia et al., 1963). Thus, a theory (Theory 1) from one field of interest (Field 1) offers some new insights to a theorist who then moves certain content or structural features into his or her own field of interest (Field 2) to form a new theory (Theory 2). Theory derivation is a creative and focused way to develop theory in a new field in that what is required is (1) the ability to see analogous dimensions of phenomena in two distinct fields of interest and (2) the ability to redefine and transpose the content and/or structure from Field 1 to Field 2 in a manner that adds significant insights about some phenomenon in Field 2 ( Figure 6–1 ). In one of the most legendary examples of use of analogy,  Hempel (1966)  describes Kekulé’s insight into the structure of benzene as a hexagon. As Kekulé dreams in front of the fire, he envisions the atoms gyrating in a snakelike fashion. Next, as Hempel describes it, “Suddenly, one of the snakes formed a ring by seizing hold of its own tail and whirled mocking before him. Kekulé awoke in a flash: he had hit upon the now famous and familiar idea of representing the molecular structure of benzene by a hexagonal ring” (p. 16). While in this example the source of the analogy came from Kekulé’s own mind, it nonetheless exemplifies the role that analogy can play in advancing theoretical understanding.

Figure 6–1

Process of theory derivation.

Seeing an analogy requires imagination and creativity; it is not a mechanical exercise. Theory derivation requires the theorist to be able to redefine networks of concepts and statements so that they are meaningful in the new field, but theory derivation goes beyond statement derivation. First, in theory derivation a whole network of interrelated concepts or a whole structure is moved from one field to another and modified to fit the new field. Second, in statement derivation you move only individual isolated statements from one field to another and modify them. Statement derivation is thus on a smaller scale than theory derivation, but understanding the process of transposing concepts and the structural forms that link them in statements (see  Chapter 5 ) is essential to theory derivation. In addition, we wish to aid readers in distinguishing theory derivation from theory adaptation and theory substruction (Bekhet & Zauszniewski, 2008;  McQuiston & Campbell, 1997 ), with which it is sometimes confused (see  Table 6–1  for these distinctions).

Table 6–1 Comparison of Theory Derivation, Adaptation, and Substruction

Theory Derivation	Theory Adaptation	Theory Substruction
Aim: to create a new theory by use of analogy to an existing theory in another field	Aim: to make a minor change in an existing theory to better fit the research focus	Aim: to specify links from “constructs” or “concepts” in the theory to “empirical indicators” in a situational focus
Moves laterally: from the theoretical level in one field to the theoretical level in another field	“Level” of the theory is unchanged: for example, may add or redefine a term (concept); modify a relationship	Moves “downward”: from very abstract theoretical level to ultimately the operational level
Example: using a biological theory of adaptation to, by analogy, develop a theory of maternal psychological adaptation	Example: adding the concept of “Internet support” to a theory of social support and coping in order to update the theory	Example: concretizing the concept of “support” in a general theory by identifying progressively more specific concepts that lead to a valid scale for measurement in a pediatric research situation

Purpose and uses

Theory derivation is particularly useful where no data are available or where new insights about a phenomenon are needed to inspire research and testing. Theory derivation is also useful when a theorist has a set of concepts that are somehow related to each other, but has no structural way to represent those relationships. (See  Chapter 5  on statement derivation for more detailed description of structure derivation.) In this case, the theorist might find that some other field of interest has a structure in one of its theories that is analogous to the relationships of the concepts in which he or she is interested. The theorist may use the derivation strategy by transposing the structure to his or her field to systematically organize the concepts being considered. This adds to the body of knowledge in the theorist’s field in a significant and rapid way that might not have happened for some time without the derivation strategy. A classic example of this is  Nierenberg’s (1968 ,  1973 ) use of Maslow’s hierarchical structure of needs to derive a theory of negotiation.

When a theorist has some ideas about the basic structure of a phenomenon but is struggling with articulating concepts to describe it, theory derivation is also very useful. Another theory in a different field may provide the theorist with a set of analogous concepts that can help describe the phenomenon, if suitably redefined for the field of interest. Again, this procedure creatively adds to the body of knowledge in the theorist’s own field. We used one example of this strategy in  Chapter 4 , where  Roy and Roberts (1981)  developed the concepts of focal, contextual, and residual stimuli in patient assessment from a psychophysics theory by Helson.

Several examples of theory derivation come quickly to mind when we consider systems theory (e.g.,  Miller, 1978 ). Many of our nursing models in their original form have been direct derivations from systems theory— Roy and Roberts (1981) ;  Neuman (1980) ;  Erickson, Tomlin, and Swain (1983) ; and others have significant aspects of theory derivation in them.

Procedures for Theory Derivation

Although the actual process may not occur sequentially, theory derivation can be discussed as a series of sequential steps. However, theory derivation is really more of an iterative process. That is, the theorist goes back and forth between some or all of the steps until the level of sophistication of the theory is acceptable.

There are several steps or phases in theory derivation, which are summarized in  Table 6–2 .

Table 6–2 Steps or Phases of Theory Derivation

Step or Phase	Step-Related Activity
1	Read widely on the topic of interest
2	Look for analogies in other fields
3	Choose “parent” theory
4	Identify concepts and structure of parent theory
5	Develop new statements and define “new” concepts in derived theory

1. Be cognizant of the level of theory development in your own field of interest and evaluate the scientific usefulness of any such development. This implies that you are or will arrange to be thoroughly familiar with the literature on the topic of interest. If your evaluation leads you to believe that none of the current theories is suitable or useful, then theory derivation can proceed.

2. Read widely in nursing and in other fields for ideas while allowing imagination and creativity free rein. Reading widely enables you to understand ways of putting theory together and gives insight into new concepts and structures you may not have thought about before. Allowing your imagination and creativity free rein opens your mind to possible analogies. Discovering analogies is often done accidentally or as a creative intuitive leap rather than systematically.

3. Select a parent theory to use for derivation. The parent theory should be chosen because it offers a new and insightful way of explaining or predicting about a phenomenon in the theorist’s field of interest. The parent theory may be, and often is, from another field or discipline, but a nursing theory may also be used. Any theory that provides you with a useful analogy can be chosen. However, just any theory won’t do. Many theories will shed no light at all on the concepts of interest or fail to provide useful structure for the concepts and are therefore worthless to the theorist. Keep in mind here that the whole parent theory may not be needed to form the new theory. Only those portions that are analogous and therefore relevant need to be used.

4. Identify what content and/or structure from the parent theory is to be used. Perhaps only the concepts or only the statements are analogous, but not the overall structure. Or perhaps the structure is perfect but the parent concepts and statements are not. Perhaps the theorist needs concepts and statements as well as structure. In the derivation strategy, the theorist is free to choose what best fits the needs of the situation.

5. Develop or redefine any new concepts or statements from the content or structure of the parent theory in terms of the phenomenon of interest to the theorist. This is not only the hardest part of theory derivation but also the most fun. It requires creativity and thoughtfulness on the part of the theorist. Basically, the concepts or structure that is borrowed from the parent field is modified in such a way that it becomes meaningful in the theorist’s field. Sometimes the modifications are small, but occasionally they will be substantial before the theory makes sense in the new setting.

Table 6–3  presents examples of theories developed or modified using the strategy of theory derivation. The selected examples draw on a wide range of parent theories and are applied to a variety of phenomena. This diversity indicates the potential range of applications of theory derivation.

Table 6–3 Examples of Theory Derivations

Author	Theory Derivation
Condon (1986)	A theory of development of caring in the nurse was derived from a parent theory of moral development
Wewers and Lenz (1987)	Derived a theory of relapse among ex-smokers from a theory of posttreatment functioning of alcoholics
Mishel (1990)	Uncertainty of illness theory (revised based on chaos theory)
Jones (2001)	Derived a theory about nursing time based on alternatives to clock/calendar time
Covell (2008)	Intellectual capital theory was used to derive a theory of nursing intellectual capital
Pedro (2010)	Health-related quality of life in rural cancer survivors
	(Note: Pedro used a combination of theory derivation and theory adaptation)

Examples of Theory Derivation

Illustrations are often clearer than verbal explanations of theory derivation, so we provide several brief examples of theory derivation. Let us begin with a classic example. Maccia et al. (1963) used both concepts and structure of a theory of eyeblinks to derive a theory of education. Because they were some of the first scholars to explicitly use derivation for theory development, we have included an example from their work. Listed below are a few of the principles and their derivations from Maccia et al. (see  Table 6–4 ).

Table 6–4 Example of Theory Derivations

Parent Theory Statements*	Maccia et al.’s Derivation*
*Except for minor modifications, the above are direct quotations from  Maccia et al. (1963 , p. 34). For ease of illustration, we have omitted quotation marks, but acknowledge the quoted nature of this material here.
1. Either the eyes are or are not covered by lids.	1. The student is either distracted or attentive.
2. Blinking functions to protect the eyes from contact and to rest the retina and the ocular muscles.	2. Distraction functions to protect the student from mental stress and to rest from mental effort.
3. Blinking may be either reflexive or nonreflexive.	3. Distraction may be either voluntary or involuntary.
4. Reflex blinking may be inhibited by a fixation object or by drugs.	4. Involuntary distraction may be inhibited by attention cues or by drugs.
5. Nonreflexive blinking may occur if seeing is unwanted.	5. Voluntary distraction may occur if learning is unwanted.

While the preceding illustration presents the derivation process as a set of interrelated statements, the strategy may also be applied to parent theories or theoretical models that are captured in diagrammatic form. To illustrate this, in  Figure 6–2 , we have presented our rendering of a (fictitious) simple theoretical model of plant tropism. (The material for this model is based on the material on the website of  Indiana University [2009] .) The model we constructed of plant tropism indicates that when conditions for growth are suboptimal, plants may use directional stimuli to alter their responses and thereby achieve more favorable conditions for growth. The common illustration of this response is when plants are placed in windows and growth becomes oriented toward the outdoors where light is more abundant.

Figure 6–2

Model of tropic plant growth responses.

Figure 6–2 Full Alternative Text

The focus of our derived theory is one that is sometimes seen in community and public health nursing: the surprising health of some individuals despite challenging environments. The derived theory that we have created (see  Figure 6–3 ) deals with the phenomenon of positive deviance in which some individuals living in low-resource situations still find ways to thrive despite their adverse circumstances ( Marsh, Schroeder, Dearden, Sternin, & Sternin, 2004 ). For illustrative purposes, we have used the plant tropic response as an analogy to aid us in constructing a theoretical model of the phenomenon of positive deviance. (Note that our model is presented primarily to illustrate the process of theory derivation and is not intended to represent the full complexity of positive deviance.)

Figure 6–3

[Fictitious] Derived model of positive deviants’ responses to low-resource environments.

Figure 6–3 Full Alternative Text

In the derived model, we have used the same structural form of the parent model with one modification. We have added bidirectional arrows between uncommon retrieval of thriving requisites and nontraditional source of requisites. We have done this to show the active role of positive deviants in thriving efforts in low-resource environments. Thus, the model indicates that positive deviants, despite finding themselves in suboptimal situations for thriving, are able to seek and use uncommon methods to attain thriving requisites and thereby create more favorable situations for thriving. A classic example of this is consuming available plants that are not typically included in the diet of the local low-resource community.

Application of Theory Derivation to Nursing

In an early nursing example of derivation, Wewers and Lenz (1987) derived a theory of relapse among ex-smokers from  Cronkite and Moos’s (1980)  theory of posttreatment functioning of alcoholics (see  Table 6–5 ). Wewers and Lenz not only primarily used content derivation but also derived a simplified structure.  Table 6–5  lists three propositions from Cronkite and Moos with the derivations made by Wewers and Lenz. In some cases, we have adapted the wording of the propositions to show the derivations more clearly. Because there was already a large amount of literature available on smoking, Wewers and Lenz adopted propositions in their derivation that fit knowledge specifically about smoking. This is an excellent example of how to use the strategy flexibly in theory-building efforts.

Table 6–5 Example of Theory Derivations

Parent Theory Statements ( Cronkite & Moos, 1980 )	Wewers and Lenz’s (1987)  Derivation
1. Pretreatment symptoms such as alcohol consumption, type of drinker, depression, and occupational functioning are related to alcohol treatment outcomes (p. 48).	1. Pretreatment symptoms such as cigarette consumption and type of smoker are related to smoking relapse (p. 48).
2. “Stressful life events were negatively associated with some aspects of recovery” (p. 49).	2. “Both the social contextual stressor of major life events and the internal stressor of craving” are associated with smoking relapse (p. 49).
3. Family environment is “weakly related to alcohol recovery” (p. 49).	3. “Long term smoking cessation is associated with having family members who are nonsmokers or who had previously been able to quit smoking” (p. 49).

Theory derivation can happen using two closely related fields as in the preceding example of Wewers and Lenz’s (1987)derivations. Or insight can come from widely disparate fields. It is the theorist’s creativity and intuition that provide the insight into the analogy.  Mishel’s (1990)  reconceptualization of the uncertainty of illness theory provides an example of derivations between widely disparate fields. Mishel used the content and structure of chaos theory to help her describe more clearly the outcome portion of her theory of uncertainty in illness (see  Table 6–6 ). We have selected three statements to illustrate how the derivation was made. In an effort to be as clear and succinct as possible, we have at times restated the propositions to make the analogies more obvious. Note that the derivations presented below do not follow the direct symmetrical form of the parent theory, but the analogous translation is relatively clear.

Table 6–6 Example of Theory Derivations

Parent Theory Statements ( Mishel, 1990 )	Mishel’s (1990)  Derivation
1. “In far-from equilibrium conditions, the sensitivity of the initial condition is such that small changes yield huge effects, and the system reorganizes itself in multiple ways” (p. 259).	1. “Abiding uncertainty can dismantle the existing cognitive structures that give meaning to everyday events. . . . This loss of meaning throws the person into a state of confusion and disorganization” (p. 260).
2. “Fluctuations in the system can become so powerful . . . that they shatter the preexisting organization” (p. 259).	2. If the uncertainty factors of disease or illness multiply rapidly past a critical value, the stability of the personal system can no longer be taken for granted (paraphrase, p. 259).
3. “Auto-catalytic processes result in a product whose presence encourages further production of itself” producing disorder (p. 259).	3. “The existence of uncertainty in one area of illness often feeds back on itself and generates further uncertainty in other illness-related events” (p. 260).

A theorist does not have to derive both concepts and structure. Derivation can be used only for concepts or only for structure. Let us examine one example in which only concepts were used.  Jones (2001)  used concepts to derive a theory about nursing time based on  Adam’s (1995)  alternatives to clock/calendar time. See  Table 6–7  for Adam’s parent theory concepts with definitions and Jones’s derivation. For other examples, see those in  Table 6–3  and the references under “Additional Readings” at the end of this chapter.

Table 6–7 Example of Theory Derivations

Parent Theory Statements ( Adam, 1995 )	Jones’s (2001)  Derivation on Nursing Time
1. Temporality—“the cycle of life and death that occurs against the backdrop of unidirectional time” (p. 155).	1. Temporality—“There are unlimited amounts of parallel and cyclical time frames within which nurses exist simultaneously and within each frame we organize, plan, and regulate our lives” (p. 154).
2. Timing—is “when” time but clock and calendar times are not the only points of reference in determining “when” for scheduling, synchronization, allocation of resources, etc.	2. Timing—“Timing in . . . nursing is dependent on multiple considerations, based on past, present, and future times” (p. 156).
3. Tempo—Time may seem to advance at varying speeds, for example, “when we speak of time moving quickly or slowly” (p. 156).	3. Tempo—“Processes in the health services are mutually implicated in how much is achieved within a given timeframe in the timing of actions and in the temporality of existence” (p. 156).

 Advantages and Limitations

Theory derivation is a focused and creative way to develop theory in new areas of interest. It is an exciting exercise in that it requires the theorist to use imagination in seeing analogies from one field and modifying them for use in a new field. In addition, theory derivation provides a way of arriving at explanation and prediction about a phenomenon where there may be little or no information, literature, or formal studies available.

One disadvantage is that the theorist must be familiar with a number of fields of interest other than his or her own field of interest. This implies reading widely and being constantly on the alert for new and profitable analogies. In addition, the theorist must be thoroughly familiar with the literature and current thinking about his or her particular area of interest. Otherwise, when the time comes to draw an analogy, the theorist will have difficulty choosing appropriate boundaries for the new theory.

Derived theories are constructed in the context of discovery ( Rudner, 1966 ). As a result, the theories thus developed lack evidence of validity until they are subjected to empirical testing in the context of theory validation and testing. Even if the theory is extremely relevant to practice or research, it must first be validated before it can be used. Methods that may be used to test theories are presented in  Chapter 13 .

Novice theorists often become so excited about their new generalizations that they fail to take into account any dissimilarities, or disanalogies, present in the parent theory. These disanalogies should at least be considered for any valuable information that they might provide in the new theory. The disanalogies may give further insight into the phenomenon or may provide useful red flags of trouble ahead.

Finally, theory derivation is only the first step in a program of research. To be useful and credible for application to practice, a theory developed by derivation needs testing through research.

UTILIZING THE RESULTS OF THEORY DEVIATION

The uses of theory derivation are to provide structure when only concepts are available, to provide concepts when only structure is available, or to provide both concepts and structure as an efficient way to begin theory development. The results of theory derivation are easily used in nursing education, practice, research, and theory development.

Theory derivation is an excellent way to obtain a theoretical framework for curriculum building in education. In addition, it can be used as a teaching tool with graduate students as a way to introduce them to theorizing in general. It is relatively easy to learn and fun to do as a group exercise. (To make the idea of theory building less scary for beginning students, we often ask them first to derive a new theory that has to do with their daily lives rather than nursing. When they are successful at this, we then ask them to derive a nursing theory.)

Theory derivation can provide significant new insights for clinical practice. Clinicians can provide themselves with a useful theoretical framework to guide their practice by using the results of theory derivation.

Theory derivation is also a means of designing a conceptual model for a research program. Moving concepts and/or structure from the parent field with appropriate changes yields a rich source of potential hypotheses for study, as  Wewers and Lenz (1987)  demonstrated. It is an efficient strategy for achieving a body of knowledge about a phenomenon.

SUMMARY

Theory derivation is a means of adding new theory development to a field. In using it, the theorist employs analogy to obtain explanations or predictions about a phenomenon in one field from explanations or predictions in another field. Both concepts and structure can be moved from the parent field to the new one, undergoing modifications along the way.

There are five steps to theory derivation: (1) become thoroughly familiar with the topic of interest; (2) read widely in other fields, allowing your imagination to help you find useful analogies; (3) select a parent theory to use for derivation; (4) identify what content and/or structure from the parent theory is to be used; and (5) modify or redefine new concepts and/or statements in terms of the phenomenon of interest. Once the new theory has been formulated, it must be tested empirically to validate that the new concepts and structure actually reflect reality in the new field.

Theory derivation is a creative means of constructing new theories. One disadvantage is that the theorist must be widely read in several fields as well as his or her own field. In addition, the theorist must remember to consider the dissimilarities as well as the similarities between the parent field and the new field.

At this point in our development of a nursing knowledge base, theory derivation is a highly workable strategy for nursing. It provides a means of developing a theory with innovative content. If carefully done and carefully tested, derived theories could play an immediate role in the development of scientific knowledge in nursing.

Examples of Theory Derivation

Illustrations are often clearer than verbal explanations of theory derivation, so we provide several brief examples of theory derivation. Let us begin with a classic example. Maccia et al. (1963) used both concepts and structure of a theory of eyeblinks to derive a theory of education. Because they were some of the first scholars to explicitly use derivation for theory development, we have included an example from their work. Listed below are a few of the principles and their derivations from Maccia et al. (see  Table 6–4 ).

Table 6–4 Example of Theory Derivations

Parent Theory Statements*	Maccia et al.’s Derivation*
*Except for minor modifications, the above are direct quotations from  Maccia et al. (1963 , p. 34). For ease of illustration, we have omitted quotation marks, but acknowledge the quoted nature of this material here.
1. Either the eyes are or are not covered by lids.	1. The student is either distracted or attentive.
2. Blinking functions to protect the eyes from contact and to rest the retina and the ocular muscles.	2. Distraction functions to protect the student from mental stress and to rest from mental effort.
3. Blinking may be either reflexive or nonreflexive.	3. Distraction may be either voluntary or involuntary.
4. Reflex blinking may be inhibited by a fixation object or by drugs.	4. Involuntary distraction may be inhibited by attention cues or by drugs.
5. Nonreflexive blinking may occur if seeing is unwanted.	5. Voluntary distraction may occur if learning is unwanted.

While the preceding illustration presents the derivation process as a set of interrelated statements, the strategy may also be applied to parent theories or theoretical models that are captured in diagrammatic form. To illustrate this, in  Figure 6–2 , we have presented our rendering of a (fictitious) simple theoretical model of plant tropism. (The material for this model is based on the material on the website of  Indiana University [2009] .) The model we constructed of plant tropism indicates that when conditions for growth are suboptimal, plants may use directional stimuli to alter their responses and thereby achieve more favorable conditions for growth. The common illustration of this response is when plants are placed in windows and growth becomes oriented toward the outdoors where light is more abundant.

Figure 6–2

Model of tropic plant growth responses.

Figure 6–2 Full Alternative Text

The focus of our derived theory is one that is sometimes seen in community and public health nursing: the surprising health of some individuals despite challenging environments. The derived theory that we have created (see  Figure 6–3 ) deals with the phenomenon of positive deviance in which some individuals living in low-resource situations still find ways to thrive despite their adverse circumstances ( Marsh, Schroeder, Dearden, Sternin, & Sternin, 2004 ). For illustrative purposes, we have used the plant tropic response as an analogy to aid us in constructing a theoretical model of the phenomenon of positive deviance. (Note that our model is presented primarily to illustrate the process of theory derivation and is not intended to represent the full complexity of positive deviance.)

Figure 6–3

[Fictitious] Derived model of positive deviants’ responses to low-resource environments.

Figure 6–3 Full Alternative Text

In the derived model, we have used the same structural form of the parent model with one modification. We have added bidirectional arrows between uncommon retrieval of thriving requisites and nontraditional source of requisites. We have done this to show the active role of positive deviants in thriving efforts in low-resource environments. Thus, the model indicates that positive deviants, despite finding themselves in suboptimal situations for thriving, are able to seek and use uncommon methods to attain thriving requisites and thereby create more favorable situations for thriving. A classic example of this is 

e 6–3

[Fictitious] Derived model of positive deviants’ responses to low-resource environments.

Figure 6–3 Full Alternative Text

In the derived model, we have used the same structural form of the parent model with one modification. We have added bidirectional arrows between uncommon retrieval of thriving requisites and nontraditional source of requisites. We have done this to show the active role of positive deviants in thriving efforts in low-resource environments. Thus, the model indicates that positive deviants, despite finding themselves in suboptimal situations for thriving, are able to seek and use uncommon methods to attain thriving requisites and thereby create more favorable situations for thriving. A classic example of this is consuming available plants that are not typically included in the diet of the local low-resource community.