This week's theme has mainly entailed discussions about the abstract entities that are theories. We have learned what constitutes them, how we construct them, and perhaps most importantly, what they are good for.
Conceptualizing what knowledge is is important - by giving us the tools we need to intervene and take action, it is what helps our world evolve. With new theories, we gain new knowledge, perspectives and tools to approach issues around us.
By using logical reasoning, researchers may connect phenomenas with explanations of why, how, and in relation to what, they occur. Depending on what field of research a particular person is in, his or her view of what theory is will differ greatly (as explained in my initial blog post on this theme). More, there is a difference between the definition of scientific theories and philosophical theories, which I feel that my first blogpost did not fully cover.
Conceptualizing what knowledge is is important - by giving us the tools we need to intervene and take action, it is what helps our world evolve. With new theories, we gain new knowledge, perspectives and tools to approach issues around us.
By using logical reasoning, researchers may connect phenomenas with explanations of why, how, and in relation to what, they occur. Depending on what field of research a particular person is in, his or her view of what theory is will differ greatly (as explained in my initial blog post on this theme). More, there is a difference between the definition of scientific theories and philosophical theories, which I feel that my first blogpost did not fully cover.
- Scientific theories wants to explain the causal logic between cause and effect, and they are often viewed more as models than theories. By looking at ideas as logical frameworks, we get "maps" to understand the world around us.
- Philosophical theories find their subject matter elsewhere than in empirical data. In the sweep where philosophical theories are contrasted to scientific theories, meaning that a great function of these philosophical concepts lie in their inability to be tested or proven by empirical methods.
Disproving theories
No matter if the theory is scientific or philosophical, one has to be able to trace the researcher's logic. During the seminar, and by again looking through the articles "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems" and "What Theory is Not", I wanted to know more about future of disproving theories.
“Every theory that comes out is considered right until a new one comes out and disproves it"
The quote by Illias Bergström during our seminar on September 21 made me wonder what theories are accepted today, and which will continue to be so in the future. Just like our dear lecturer said, we disprove theories and facts all the time, and hence "knowledge advances one funeral at the time". So who's funeral will we attend next?
Today, theories do not only arise through the minds of established scholars and academic institutions. On the contrary, commercial research institutes like Google Research Labs or R&D divisions at biotech companies such as Pfizer, are on the rise. Academic peer reviewing as a tool for establishing legitimacy is hence no longer the sole praxis, and it makes me wonder if our approach to research and theory is about to change. Will the new increased amount of knowledge lead to more frequent disproving of theories?
* An important note is that while many seem to tackle the definition of theories by looking at what is contemporary accepted knowledge, disproven theories does not stop being theories. For example, Pythagoras' theory of the earth being flat might be proven wrong, but it is still a theory.
Hypotheses VS theories
My last note on the theme concerns hypotheses. This week, and especially my engagement in the discussions during the seminar, has made me realize that I have sometimes confused the notion of hypotheses with theories. The common expression of "having a theory of something" has confused my terminology. For example, my theory of there being a bug in the Blogger system is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
My contributions
My chosen article seemed to spike some interest in my small discussion group. I contributed to the discussion by explaining the complex theories that supported it (e.g. objectification theory and perception theory). My contributions were greater in the small group discussion than in the classroom discussion, but for this specific seminar I felt like if the bigger discussions was more about summarizing and presenting your group's thoughts (which my teammate did very well!).
My last note on the theme concerns hypotheses. This week, and especially my engagement in the discussions during the seminar, has made me realize that I have sometimes confused the notion of hypotheses with theories. The common expression of "having a theory of something" has confused my terminology. For example, my theory of there being a bug in the Blogger system is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
My contributions
My chosen article seemed to spike some interest in my small discussion group. I contributed to the discussion by explaining the complex theories that supported it (e.g. objectification theory and perception theory). My contributions were greater in the small group discussion than in the classroom discussion, but for this specific seminar I felt like if the bigger discussions was more about summarizing and presenting your group's thoughts (which my teammate did very well!).
I feel like you've understood the theme very well, and this post made it even more clear to me as well. We discussed a lot of the same things in the seminar and our small group, for example about different theories for different fields, and theory vs hypotheses. I thought your thoughts on disproving theories were quite interesting and something we discussed as well, that even if a theory has been disproven it doesn't stop being a theory, and your example of Pythagoras' theory made it very clear.
ReplyDeleteYour part about commercial research institutes and that new theories not only comes from scholars and academics anymore was interesting as well, and makes me wonder what kind of affect, if any, that will have. Especially if commercial research institutes are owned by privately or have different agendas than academics and scholars.
You provided the interesting information about the theories developed by the business, not academics in traditional meaning. Probably, it could be explained by the 'foot-dragging' approaches to the verification and publishing the articles by the influential magazines with the high impact factors. If you remember, on the last lecture we have been told about the procedure: even if the article is accepted, it can me published in a few months or even the next year (!). Too slow for our fast-moving globalized world, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThat was also useful to know that the pseudo-science theories are still considered as the theories. In my opinion, in the Internet-era with a lot of fake information online such a terminology can be a bit misleading.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the grand approach to describing theories and putting them in the big picture by defining them as a tool to help the world to evolve, and raising the question of what the ultimate purpose of using theories are. You show insight by saying that theories are not only for gaining new knowledge but also to add different perspective and ultimately to get tools to actually address the problems that surrounds us in the world.
ReplyDeleteYou describe theory in a holistic way, putting it into a historical context. Your text also made me reflect upon how theories that we today perceive to be true, might in the future be proven invalid. You also raise the question of the relation between applied and basic research, as theories now also derives from commercial researchers. Interesting point! My opinion too, is that this raises the importance of peer reviewing as well as creates a need for clear distinguishing. Having read other blogposts, I know that you are not the only one that was confused with the common terminology of theories and hypotheses. The theory to your examples would be an explanatory framework explaining why there is a bug in the system. You have done a great job!
"We have learned what constitutes them, how we construct them, and perhaps most importantly, what they are good for."
ReplyDeleteThis part about theory, claiming that the most important part being what they are good for is questionable. Do you mean practical appliance, usefulness in general or something else? Either way I disagree slightly with this view as I see theory as a framework to use, but the definition is as concluded anyways more or less subjective in any case.
Positive note is that your discussion regarding peer review already had me thinking; due to the conflict in turbulent changes in the environment (certainly within media technology) balanced with the quality check that peer review offers, maybe this system needs to change.
Commerical institutes offering theory can be as valid as any other produced theory. However, it is always worth to question the intent behind a study and in this case another question becomes "Is there anyone profiting of results?"
Some examples of problematic commercially based research from the past is the bra (sponsored by bra companies making us think there is any physiological function why to use it, when it is purely cosmetical) and car companies such as Volkswagen and Ford that produce high emissions and questionable vehicles disguised behind the umbrella of research. Not to mention Nestlé and their campaign to promote supplement before breastfeeding babies in third world countries. So the validity of commercial research is in my opinion for these reasons slightly lower than other theory. But then again, one can always question the intent, regardless of origin.