After the lecture and seminar on Theme 3 it is still very hard to really come up with a good explanation to a first-year student what theory is. In the seminar we mostly agreed on it being first and foremost an "explanatory framework for an observation or logical thought" that needs to be testable. So somewhat along the lines of the dictionary explanation of the word itself. Then again, we also discussed that depending on which of the two papers you follow it becomes more unclear again. For Gregor there is something called Analysis Theory, which fits the earlier description to some extent, but then Staton & Staw say that this kind of work is undeniably not a theory. So we decided to say that the definition of theory is dependent on the field of research one is working in. That also led us to talk about Kuhns and Feyerabends work on who stated that there is no structure in how to come up with a good theory and that in general the whole process is very messy.
When we were discussing our papers and what kinds of theories they are using I was asked what theory my chosen paper is based on (not what it turned out to be). The paper itself, as stated earlier, is a mixture of Design and Action theory with a minor part of EP theory. However what it is based on is hard to tell for me - or I am unsure about the meaning behind the question.
Larsson & Moe based their research on both qualitative and quantitative research papers either stating that there is a need for more research on political involvement among internet users, or papers that did study if people are using the internet for getting political information such as news or campaign topics. Even though many of their cited papers ask for more research and the connection between the Internet use during election times and the outcome after election, Larsson & Moe only presented a method for analyzing it and showing in in practice with their case study in the 2010 Swedish general election. However, while they did find a new way of analyzing and categorizing twitter and its users, they fail to answer the questions the other papers have asked about how microblogging or the internet in general is affecting the outcome of the elections and if they are in any way connected.
If that truly answers the question what theory the paper in question is based upon, I am still unsure.
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your reflection, well written!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how the meaning of theory differs per research field. Even the way 'theory ' is used in general has a different meaning then the definition of the different research fields. As I understand it now the meaning of theory in civil society- is rather 'a hunch or idea that a person has' while in science it is 'the way thing are interpret'. I also think that it is hard to come up with one definition for theory, if not even impossible.
I agree with you about the definition of theory, that it is indeed very much contextual and depends on the scientific field. Just as you self noticed that Gregor and Staton & Staw wrote a bit contradictorily about it as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, you found the chosen theory type white well in the paper you chose. It's sometimes a rather hard task since the researchers aren't necessarily paying attention to metatheory or stating clearly that "this is the theory type we'll be using" etc. Usually it's quite impossible to find a grand theory behind it all, rather many theories affecting each other combined in the literature view – meaning the research paper doesn't follow just one theory on which the experiment is based on. I also noticed that some of us in the course understood the task very differently, but your posts seem to have a good hold on the subject. Thank you for opening up your thoughts!
I agree with you that theory sometimes feels differently defined depending on what papers you read, and the concept you (and your seminar group) decided on consequently fits my perception, too. However relevant your definition of theory was in terms of dependency on field and creation of a framework, I believe that you might have benefited from mentioning the disproving of theories as a part of your definition. As another classmate defined the notion, "Theories are tested ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic for current scientific studies – until they have been contradicted". I think it is important to discuss the disproving or contradicting of theories, since that is a central concept in knowledge production!
ReplyDeleteYour reflection was a bit confusing regarding the definition of theory. So you are saying that there are different definitions of theories? Or maybe you intentionally meant that you can apply different framework of theories depending on the field of research?
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to the previous comment by u1kq1ay0 I agree with you on the statement that there exist different definitions of theories. A theory in a natural science can not be compared to a theory in social sciences. Theories are differently produced and especially used. What the papers we had to read in advance to theme 3 just try to build a theory around theory again. It gets more and more abstract. In the end I agree with the statement, that theories have to answer some kind of questions through models or designs. The way they do it can vary not only from field to field, but as well from theory to theory. There is no rule how one should look like, and there can be no rule, because every construct is differently and demands through that a different way of explanation/question-answering.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post to read, I agree with you that theory does depend on the scientific field and can differ quite a lot, and that the texts by Sutton & Staw and Gregor were contradicting. The paper you chose sounds very interesting and (even thought that wasn't part of the assignment) it would have been interesting to read more about it, even thought it's quite disappointing to read they didn't answer how, or if, it affected the outcome of the election - as that to me would have been the most interesting part.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mention Kuhns and Feyerabends and how they highlighted the lack of structure when conducting research. It would be interesting if you had clarified how these theories actually are dependent on the field of research rather than just stating that it is the case. My view is that it is more dependent on whether you consider yourself as being a logical positivism or a interpretivist, rather than what field of research one is working in. Even if the theories varies, I think it is more interesting to look at how the process of choosing/dismissing theories works, but that is just me!
ReplyDeleteI understand your confusion because in the beginning I was expecting to be given a specific definition of what certain theories are and why is so.
ReplyDeleteThe opposition between both readings is confusing at first but now I consider it as a conceptual framework that can be followed when one is trying to specify the type of theory, instead of giving/receiving an exact explanation. I totally agree that it is strictly dependent on the field of inquiry because after all when a theory is developed it is done so with a certain purpose and it is guided by practice. The theory itself then guides the research process and vice versa.
Good job on you reflection. It did help me reach some new conclusions.
Indeed, the definition and “strength” of theory largely depends on the field of research. Nonetheless, I think, we can distinguish between theory as:
ReplyDelete- a tested assumption that is supported by evidence and can be used to analyze and/or explain phenomena or events; the relations between them and the actors in them; to make predictions or offer guidance about how something should be done; or be used as a foundation for testing a hypothesis;
- a hypothesis - an untested assumption, an idea or a hunch as to why something happens that is not yet supported by evidence.
In our seminar group we also discussed that we need to be careful with using categorical words like “proof” and “truth” in relation to theory. No matter how strong a theory is, it can always be bettered and replaced by a new one (that’s not to say that the “old” one becomes obsolete, but it does lose some of its influence). So, basically, every theory is next to be last. Thank you for the interesting read!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you for an interesting post!
I too wasn't satisfied with the initial definition that "explanatory framework for an observation or logical thought" , especially considering what we've read in Gregors text. I agree that defining theory is largely depending on the context and research applied to it, but at the same time I want to believe there is a more general way to put it, in order to fit all disciplines (otherwise all research essays would end up using references, hypothesises etc. instead)