The permanence of theories and their validity throughout time is a relevant question that is to be separately considered in every particular case. Once established, some theories remain consistent in the course of an extended period, while others prove their inefficiency due to the change of the conditions in the current scientific environment. There are numerous cases when a research discovery serves to be either a refutation of an existing theory or, on the contrary, its substantiation. Speculatively, a theory can be everlasting unless it contradicts with the existing reality’s circumstances. Whereas some aspects of a theory can be gradually rejected, its principal postulates might still be accepted by the public and are likely to become a basis for another hypothesis’s development. One should also point out that the fact that a theory’s inconsistency in certain circumstances does not essentially signify of its complete irrelevance, but might sometimes illustrate the low level of its adaptive qualities.
While considering the permanence of a theory, it is crucial to apply efficient tools for measuring its validity. Thus, one cannot claim that a theory is inconsistent due to the distant timeframes of its foundation. Therefore, each field of science has its approaches to the theoretical validity’s evaluation (Strauss & Smith 2009). Regarding the particular case of the Bass’s theory selected as the framework for the research planned, even though its foundation dates back to the end of the nineteenth century, there are no reasons to doubt its legitimacy. The theory does not contradict with the current management principals. Moreover, its key theses have been widely applied to the advancement of other management theories of the transformational leadership character (Bass 1999).
Reference List
Bass, BM 1999, ‘Two Decades of Research and Development in
Transformational Leadership ‘, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 9-32.
Strauss, ME & Smith GT 2009, ‘Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology ‘, Annual review of clinical psychology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-25.