This week’s theme was research and
theory, we read the articles, What
Theory Is Not and The Nature of
Theory in Information Systems. Both articles offered a perspective on
theory and how it should be used. During
the seminar we discussed the different theory methods and what a good theory
actually is. As a group we needed to come up with a definition. We defined
theory as; a system of ideas that provide
explanation, design, exploration of something that you don't already have
knowledge about. It should give you a new understanding. In this process we
came to the conclusion that it is hard to define what a good theory is, as
theory needs to meet up to quite some requirements and depending on the field
of research the meaning of theory can differ.
When I got home I searched for the different definition of theory,
depending on the field of research, as I wanted to know what the differences
are and why it is hard to define ‘theory’. For instance the definition of the
commonly use of ‘theory’ is: ‘An idea or
a hunch that someone has’, but in science theory means: ‘The way we interpret things’, while in
social sciences theory refers to ‘logically
interrelated set of propositions about empirical reality’.
With this in mind I also researched how a theory developed. According to
lifescience.com the start of a theory is as a hypothesis (step 1)- an idea that hasn’t been proven yet. So
for an example; it’s bright outside when I look out the window, the sun is
probably up (hypothesis), when this hypothesis is tested (I go outside to see
if the sun is shining, I have an explanation for why it is (probably) bright
outside, but this this is nothing more than an explanation. When this
hypothesis gets tested several times and there is enough evidence to support
this- then the hypothesis moves to the next step- which Is theory (step 2).
And until somebody proves that this theory is wrong, it is seen as the
truth. Or how our teacher Ilias Bergstrom quoted it; ‘Science advances one
funeral at a time’. With this been said we also argued that even if a theory is
proven to not be true, it doesn't stop existing. For an example; the Flat Earth
theory is proven to be wrong, but it still exists as a theory.
With this being said I Even for researchers it is a matter of good
judgment to determine if theory is relevant or not.
During the seminar we discussed the different papers that we read, and
the theory method that we taught were used.
The method of the paper that I read was an ‘analysis’. We discussed what
the limitations and the benefits are of this method and what that means for the
article, so for an example the researcher concluded that online community has a
positive impact on our social capital (in this research it was defined as trust
and generalized norms) - but ‘why’ this influence occurs is not clear.
During the seminar I contributed by explaining what my paper was about and
by participating with the group discussions.
Sources
http://www.livescience.com/21491
Salut,
ReplyDeleteVery nice example to express your way of seeings things. About your different definition it sounds like there are two different meaning, one for the "civilian" world and the other one for the scientist world. As it is true, since we sometimes use " I have a theory" in order to express a hunch we may have. But the problem that I notice of having two different definition is that when the scientist explains their discoveries, if we have a lot of different use of our words, we will misinterpret the discovery and therefore reduce the trust we could have in the scientist world...
Nice quote from the teacher, one funeral at a time, meaning that when we take down we old theory a new one arise, right ? At least I get it that way...
Unfortunately and you're right, theory do not die. This is mostly a bad thing because people keep holding to those old theories and, I would dare to say, hold the whole humanity back, they don't want to move on (yes, I'm aiming at the religious people).
Thank you for the interesting read.
Hi! I found it interesting that you highlighted an idea that concept of theory changes accordingly for each study field. I really see after the lecture and seminar that concept of theory is hard to grasp and hard to define. I see theory as a system of ideas that has strong framework of reasonable observations and/or experiments, empirical examples. Moreover, we haven't got there during my seminar, but it is indeed a great thought that "Science advances one funeral at a time", even theories have an expiration date, really interesting. Thank you for a great reflection!
ReplyDeleteHi! I feel like we gained some similar insights during our seminars and lecture. I too found the quote "knowledge advances one funeral at a time" interesting, but for me it awoke thoughts of which theories we have today that will "die" in the future. It would have been nice to read about your thoughts on that subject! However, I do believe that it was nice of you to add the part about hos theories don't simply stop existing once disproven. It gives me hope as a potential future researcher; even if my research would be disproven someday, my lifework would not have been discredited as not constituting a (even if disproven) theory!
ReplyDeleteI think we've been working in the same group at the seminar :)
ReplyDeleteThat was interesting to remind myself about the differences between the definitions of the science and social science theories. I also liked the way you described the process of hypothesis evolving into the theory: it's clear and understandable even for the 5-years old kids.
I like how you looked into the different definitions for the commonly use of the word, the scientific use and the social science use. In your text you described how theories are developed. The process that starts with a hypothesis, deriving from deductive reasoning (other theories?), and then testing the hypothesis by observing the world, by inductive reasoning. The quote ‘Science advances one funeral at a time’, is an expressive saying that will help me remember the dynamics of theory evolvement. During the seminar I attended, we did not talk much about the theory for analyzing but we spent some time discussing the theory of explaining and predicting, theory for explaining and theory for design and action. Therefor, your conclusions added a different perspective for me. But what are the benefits of using that specific theoretical framework?
ReplyDeleteI like that you shared your findings of your own search of what theory means. I surely believe that theory means different things in different fields, however, I feel like the defintions you found were very simplified and insufficient. The theory development, on the other hand, I found very interesting. It was described in a very pedagogical way, which I enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteGreat that you emphasized that disproven theory is still (potentially valid) theory! This was new to me as well. The contrast mentioned between various definitions you found also helps to explain potential confusions someone that isn't familiar with the concept of theory might have.
ReplyDeleteHello! Thank you for your engaging posts. :) First of all, you managed to clarify the same point I was concentrating in this theme: how a theory is still a theory even if proven wrong. You just summarized it in a nutshell, great job! I was also impressed of your little research about the concept of theory. That is highly relevant to understand that the meaning of the concept varies depending on the context and even within science.
ReplyDeleteYou also managed to review the academic article critically enough and pointed clearly where you thought there was something lacking or badly presented. And just like you said, it is sometimes pretty difficult to find the actual links to previous theories in the text – the author doesn't necessarily point it out very clearly. All in all, nice reflecting!