What is theory? As described in my first post about research and theory, some conclusions could be drawn about what theory is not. It is harder to define what theory is as there is no absolute answer to this. In the lecture, this understanding was confirmed, but we also learned some more.
New information to me was that "theory" is different from "a theory" in that theory is, according to my understanding, a system of ideas that provides, explore, explain, or prescribes something you do not have prior knowledge about. New understanding. Theory is supported by institutions and offers argumentation about certain phenomenon. "A theory" is referring to a more narrow and existing understanding about a topic and can sometimes also be similar to the concept of “hypothesis”; in the sentence “I have theory...” one is more inclined to mean “I have a hypothesis” than “I have a system of ideas”. We also discussed facts. "Facts can only be referred to a priori knowledge and nothing else.", the teacher said. This was interesting as hearing “it is a fact” could be questioned more often. We were recommended to read further literature on the topic; "Structure of scientific revolutions" and "An anarchist theory of knowledge".
In discussion groups, we were to describe the major theories used in our papers and potential pros and cons. The group found it tricky to pinpoint some papers; whether they purely analysed or also described or forecasted theory. It was an interesting dilemma, but in the end we concluded that some of our papers were of analysis type and others of design.
Benefits and limitations of papers were discussed where analysis cons were many questions to still explore, no causal relationships and impractical. Analysis pros were good basis for another researcher to continue, on a new topic it is valid information and ability to focus in depth on a particular subject; eliminate unnecessary information.
Design con was potentially scattered information. Design pros were practical application, prediction and relevant to businesses.
It was interesting to learn about how research methods were used in different ways in our papers, but also how there was some overlap in problems found with for example balancing resources and applying research in a professional setting. One paper was about how screens are scanned differently by human eyes depending on screen size. This was particularly interesting in the era of user experience that is becoming more relevant. The book “Information architecture for the world wide web” came to mind, warmly recommended for anyone interested to learn more about User experience design (UX).
This lesson made me connect back to the concept “knowledge” and how it is natural for human beings to organize information and knowledge to make sense of the world. Research papers organize data, hypotheses and theory. Information architecture organizes information. Carl von Linné (you know, the guy on Swedish 100 SEK bills) organized plants and when it went further, also human beings, introducing race biology way before Hitler. In this sense, theory becomes a tool for us to make sense of the world, but it is also merely one of many and not a necessary evil.
Salut,
ReplyDeleteYour distinction between your new definition of theory and hypothesis is interesting. Do we however mean I have a hypothesis every time we have a theory? I understand that this is in the case we just come out of nowhere and say we have a theory, instead of having done some research prior saying that and come up with a real theory that implied a questions, research and hypothesis.
You're making a good point here linking this to knowledge, I believe in that connection as well. Everything humans do are organised and lead to a point we are trying to express, as you mentioned the papers. I wonder however what others tools you are referring to in order to make sense of the world ? As far as I'm concerned, in order to prove a point, the logical science way to do it seems to me the only way to do so.
Great reflections however, thanks !
Hi! Thank you for a nice reflection.
ReplyDeleteWhen you write that theory is supported by institutions, I would have enjoyed a further definition of what such may be. Are you referring to academic institutions? Commercial research institutes? Big companies that have earn institutional status? I believe that a clarification of what institutions you mean is needed. My own interpretation of the notion of theory and its connection to "institutions" is that all of the previously mentioned sources of research can be home of the creation of new theories.
I also believe that you could have been more clear in your definition of the differences between theory and hypotheses, since that is a common trap where many, less cultivated scholars than ourselves, get confused ;)
You writing about "theory" being different from "a theory" was interesting, as well as your new definition of theory and hypothesis. In my seminar we also discussed the differences and concluded that we a lot of the time mix up theory and hypotheses. We also discussed the different theories in out papers, and had the same difficulties, as it was sometimes hard to decide if a paper was simply an analysis or also made some predictions etc.
ReplyDeleteI would have wanted to read some deeper writing about the part of institutions, "Theory is supported by institutions and offers argumentation about certain phenomenon" I don't really understand what you mean, what type of institutions? Or are you referring to sources of research we've discussed previously?
I thought this weeks theme was quite interesting but also difficult, I learnt a lot more about theory and it seems you did as well. You've written a good reflection and it was very interesting to read!
Your first half of the reflection is particularly interesting. I think I would not really make a distinction between theory and a theory but between theory in everyday language and scientific theory where the former is just a basic idea, a hypothesis and the latter is the actually scientifically formed and underlined version of said idea/hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteHello and thank you for your well-thought reflection. It’s impressive how you add so many recommendations for further readings and information from outside the topic. I like that a lot and it just shows how clearly you understand the themes that are covered in this course. You don’t only reproduce the learned information, but also make connections to a lot of other topics. You’re explanation of a theory is really accurate and I like especially how you bring up the often (maybe too often) used term of “I have a theory” in everyday language, although - according to scientific research it should be more called “I have a hypothesis. But who does that? Exactly - nobody, because in our “normal” speaking we mostly don’t reflect on the meaning of common sayings or constructs, like “I have a theory” - but that’s just my system of ideas.
ReplyDeleteHello and thank you for your well-thought reflection. It’s impressive how you add so many recommendations for further readings and information from outside the topic. I like that a lot and it just shows how clearly you understand the themes that are covered in this course. You don’t only reproduce the learned information, but also make connections to a lot of other topics. You’re explanation of a theory is really accurate and I like especially how you bring up the often (maybe too often) used term of “I have a theory” in everyday language, although - according to scientific research it should be more called “I have a hypothesis. But who does that? Exactly - nobody, because in our “normal” speaking we mostly don’t reflect on the meaning of common sayings or constructs, like “I have a theory” - but that’s just my system of ideas.
ReplyDelete