One of the most challenging steps in business research is that of arriving at theoretical frameworks. First, there is the theoretical construct, the best of which explain, predict and control phenomena. Examples of these might be job satisfaction, brand loyalty or remote supervision over the Internet.
In turn, theoretical frameworks require a constitutive definition: what it is, how it differs from other concepts and constructs, what are its wellsprings and consequences. A good example of such constitutive detail is, “role ambiguity is a direct function of the discrepancy between the information available to the worker and that required for satisfactory performance of a role” (Singh & Rhoads, 1991).
Owing to these rigorous requirements, constructing a satisfactory theoretical framework from a single in-depth interview is possible only if the source is the global or national authority in the field and if he or she is prepared to acknowledge conflicting theories. Otherwise, the benefits of a well-done depth interview have to do with exploration of all facets of a problem, pursuing new avenues, clarifying ambiguities or sources of confusion, defining interrelationships, and enabling operationalization of the theory.
On the other hand, a reasonable amount of secondary research and review of relevant literature helps the researcher trace how investigation into the phenomenon proceeded over time, gives the maximum opportunity to discover alternative theoretical formulations for the same construct, and reveals options for operationalizing the construct. As well, literature search for less distressing alternatives is legally mandated in the fields of human and animal experimentation.
Bibliography
Singh, J. & Rhoads, G.K. (1991) Boundary role ambiguity in marketing-oriented positions: A multi-dimensional, multi-faceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 328-338.