Second blog post - Theme 3: Research and theory
We discussed how a theory is a set of tested assumptions. And it could be proven to be true if the result is consistent from various experts. But once again the question of what is the truth arose. Even if different experts get the same results, what if they missed a parameter that is essential to actually display the “real” truth. It could be some universal that is missing.
One thing that is certain, is that you can never be certain.
The lesson clarified the difference between hypothesis and theory. The first is something that is unproven or speculative, while the latter is a set of proposals to identify abstract objects and their relationship to each other.
Theory is designed by us and must be supported by parameters.
The purpose of theory is to seek to explain the world and anticipate what's to come.
Most people in the seminar interpreted the definition of what a theory is differently. One person tried to apply the design and action on a case which clearly did not state a composition of an artifact.
I would have said that the EP (Explanation and Prediction) theory would have been applicable on her case. Most of them had chosen papers that represented a social science research which aimed to examine a behavioural phenomenon which often is an EP case and not related to an artifact.
I got the impression that it is crucial to be thorough when choosing a theory framework before starting the research. This will be the foundation when analysing the data which will lead to the result. This will display how accurate the result is.
Depending on the area you want to investigate, I would say that there are different applications of appropriate theoretical framework.
Scientific theory will try to represent reality. Scientific theories are viewed as scientific models. The scientific theories seems to me to be the most secure theories to rely on because they are build upon raw data or logic.
Philosophical theories are often based on ideas which can be quite unreliable. All humans have ideas and they are subjective. So if the aim is to get a phenomenon proven it would be rather difficult to get a consistent set of results if all of them are subjective. Though these types of theories can explain more qualitative research such as in human behaviour which is in the field of humanities and involves methods such as hermeneutics and semiotics.
With research we try to establish or confirm facts and solve problems. If we apply a scientific method in a research we get a systematic way of collecting data. The result of the research often provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and the properties of the world. With these framework we can create artifacts that can be a solution to a practical problem.
Salut,
SvaraRaderaVery interesting reflection here, loved reading it.
You raise a good point that I totally agree with. If a theory is tested and even if multiple expert works on the subject, they may all miss (we never know) an actual element that would change completely or partially the truth they've discovered, therefore we would set up on that truth until someone comes up and do it all over again and don't miss it. I think this is exactly the point of the sentence "Truth is the truth until proven otherwise" that I keep sense of.
"Theory is designed by us" I think you couldn't be truer. Even if the information point into a certain direction, we, human, decide how the theory should be applied or written. And understand the relation between each object, why do they react this way and not this way...
Thank you for the reading!
Hi! I really liked how you explained quite complicated concept of theory in such an easy and straightforward way. Sentence in which you say "Theory is designed by us and must be supported by parameters" got me thinking for a while. I do agree to what you state here, however, I fell like a researcher can never get all "appreciation" for his theory alone, as more usual than not, his new theory is based on a great background of other theories and so on. In my group discussion we actually tried to think about the difference: does research develops a theory or other way around? Moreover, I also agree that different field of study must apply different frameworks to get the best result. Thank you for great thoughts and reflection!
SvaraRaderaHi! I liked the passage of your post where you write that theory is designed by us. I think that this is one of the most important things to keep in mind when discussing and reflecting on the notion of theory; researchers are the clue needed to turn data into knowledge, and without them our world will be left without any new knowledge contributions. I also think that this issue is linked to the disproving of theories; since theories are designed by "us", they can also be disproven by us.
SvaraRaderaThe point you are mentioning about how people in your group interpreted the definition the theories differently was thought-provoking. You draw the connection to them having chosen papers within the field of social research rather then in the discipline of information systems. Do you think that the theories from the paper could be applicable to general social science subjects as well? I found it interesting that the author of the paper, Shirley Gregor, is active in the school of accounting and business information systems and not at a computer science faculty. I think there is a need to apply philosophical theories and not only scientific theories to the field of for examples computer science. I think that applying different frameworks to the same subject helps to develop that particular field and evokes questions that further research can draw upon.
SvaraRaderaA very interesting reflection, I found it interesting that people in your seminar had defined theory differently, and that people had chosen social science research papers, trying to examine a behavioural phenomenon. I would have wanted you to elaborate a bit more on this topic, do you think that theory is different in different fields? Would it be a difference between scientific theories and philosophical theories? I for one think there is.
SvaraRaderaI found it especially interesting what you wrote about theory being designed by us,
something I think is very important to remember, and is also linked to the disproving of theories, if a theory is designed by us, it can also be disproven by us.
Your reasoning about scientific theories being more reliable than philosophical theories is flawed. You argue that human beings and their ideas are a reason for uncertainty and complexity. But scientific theories are seen through human beings and interpreted by them. What would be the purpose of these theories unless they were interpreted and communicated by people?
SvaraRadera