In this
week’s seminar we got an insight on how theories can be categorized. The
taxonomy of theory types, as states by Gregor, goes further than the
traditional understanding of theories as explanation or prediction types. In
that way theories can also be considered as a type of analysis, explanation and
prediction and design and action. While Gregor tries to define a certain set of
characteristics for each type, in practical use – as we did in the seminar – the
interpretations may vary what emerged into discussions. Some of the theories
used in the research papers couldn’t be clearly defined as just one type of
theory and could be stated as “either or”. This was depended on our subjective
understanding of what a theory is and how we interpret Gregor’s classification.
All this reasoning made it pretty clear for me how hard it is to define the
term theory and it always depends on factors.
Another goal
of the seminar was to critical reflect on the reliability and the validity of research
papers. As we discussed different papers in class that covered a wide range of
topics and were based on different kinds of theories, the limitation tough remained
mostly the same for each of them.
A few limitations
of the presented research papers we discussed in the seminar were such as the
following:
- There was
no generalization possible because the study was conducted in a specific
cultural context or any other type of bias. A cross-cultural or longitudinal
study would have given in some cases a more reliable insight due to a broader
focus and the attempt to generalize a finding.
- The reliability
of the collected data was in question, because it always depended on the
research method that was used in the study and how the sample was chosen.
- A few
studies had unclear defined examination variables, e.g. choosing high and low
ranked links on Google always depends on how researchers define “high” and “low”.
- Some
studies were conducted too narrowly and focused just on one specific group of
people, a certain media type, device, or conceptualization of variables, while
others were the total opposite.
As we all are
quite acquainted now with how to categorize theories and what theories are not,
the question for me still remains what theory is in its core? I always thought
that a fundament of hypothesis which were approved as being valid would be
sufficient enough to call a phenomenon “theory”. However, Sutten and Staw argue
that a set of hypothesis cannot be considered theory and that a convincing and
logical chain of arguments are needed in order to explain, predict, and delight
(Sutton and Staw 1995: 378). Right now if I could choose, I would rather wish
to be enlightened than delighted.
References:
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. In:
Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 40 (3), 371-384.
First of all I have to say your argument on theories and that our definitions and classifications of theory types may vary because they depend on our subjective interpretations is both really interesting and well written!
ReplyDeleteIt is really important that you mentioned the reliability and validity of papers. I liked how you explained that collected data depend on the methodologies used and that this affects the reliability of a research.
After these seminars, I reached the conclusion that it is difficult to find a paper without limitations. Do agree on that?
I don't know if this helps, but my definition of theory is strongly affected by linguistics. The origins of the word can be found in ancient Greek- theoro (θεωρώ) could be defined as "to observe", "to believe", "to think" -and I could add- in a critical way. Thus, hypothesis cannot be considered as theory. Arguments are necessary in order to explain something.
Thank you for your lesson in greek :) I enjoyed it!!
DeleteReading your post I see, like me, you are skeptical about both categories of theory expressed in the book and on the general validity and reliability of papers.
ReplyDeleteThus research and speculation are essential for our growth as citizens, society and nations, in this way since the validity and reliability always remains in a "twilight zone" and is arguable it is probably better to have several papers on the same argument and draw conclusions by comparing them.
Hi Teo! Good point. I think that we can raise critique against any scientifical paper, but of course when many papers come to the same result it is high likely that we have some evidence for drawing a conclusion.
ReplyDelete