The theme for this week has been Research and Theory with the assignment to read The Nature of Theory in Information Systems by Shirley Gregor as well as What Theory is Not written by Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw. Furthermore, we selected a research paper that was relevant for media technology research and studied its theoretical framing and the theory/theories used in the paper. When writing the first blogpost for this theme I gave the explanation that theory is the answer to why phenomenon happen. I still agree with this definition of what theory is but would like to add a few things since I have gained a little bit more deeper understanding of the concept theory after the lecture and seminar. During the seminar we all agreed that theory provides an explanatory framework for an observation, and that framework can either be verified or falsified. In my group we talked about how a theory is true until it is proven wrong. For example, a theory states that all bears are either black or brown. The theory is true until someone discover the white bear which makes the previous theory false. The new theory is instead, all bears are either black, brown or white. This example goes in line with the previous mentioned definition that theory provides an explanatory framework for an observation. However, a theory does not need a new observation to conform as a theory. It can also be a new frame of thought, that is, using the same data but with a new outcome. I directly connect this to our previous reading about Copernicus and how he proved the theory that the sun revolved around the earth wrong and instead proved that the it is the earth that revolve around the sun. Leif Dahlberg mentioned during the lecture that theory is also about making generalizations, which is another argument that theory does not need a new observation to conform as a theory. For example if you see a lot of trees, a forest, in a picture, you assume that there is more trees outside the borders of the picture.
An interesting discussion we had during the seminar was the difference between a hypotheses and a theory. At first we had a hard time making the distinction between the two in their definitions but ended up in a somewhat clear distinction. Hypotheses are assumptions, i.e. unverified claims. Hypotheses are proposed theories or theories that are not proven or verified. From the hypothesis you build a theory by, for example, making observations or experiments. By that you could say that theories are confirmed or proved hypotheses. In other words, you form a hypothesis, try it, and if it proves successful you have formed a theory. However, as with the example with the bears, the theory can at any time be reconsidered or rejected if it happens to be proven wrong. I would say that theories never can be definitive verified.
I really enjoyed this theme because theory is something we have worked with continuously during our study, in one way or another. I can only speak for myself but I have never really thought about what theory actually means. Before this week I would have categorized data as theory but now I know that that is not the case, theory is much more advanced than that.
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your reflection and it looks like you have a good understanding of the concept.
SvaraRaderaI agree with you on that a theory is built on hypotheses, when a hypothesis is proven to be correct the next step is theory. But your example of the bears is a great way to contradict this idea, as you said it is 'the' theory until it is proven wrong. And as almost our whole world is construct by theories, this does give me something to think about.
Nice summary and you use good examples to explain what you mean!
SvaraRaderaHi! Your post was nicely structured and contained loads of interesting thoughts. Thanks!
I liked your passage about hypotheses in relation to theory. I believe that this is the most common trap; it confuses people around the subject. The common language use of saying "I have a theory about X" has coloured my own mind deeply, and even well into this theme I had a hard time letting go of that definition of what a theory is. But now my definition is (hopefully...) the way it should be. I believe you summed it up nicely; "you form a hypothesis, try it, and if it proves successful you have formed a theory") made the concept much cleared". Thanks for that!
Interesting reflection. Your reflection was similar to mine, that a theory is built upon assumptions and hypotheses until it is proven wrong. And it is fascinating to think about how our world is conceptualized by our theories.
SvaraRaderaFirst of all, thank you for your thoughts. Nice to read about the improvement that happened in the way of perceiving a theory! Theory as an "explanatory framework for an observation" is a felicitous definition – you managed to capture it well. However, just like you said, theory doesn't need observation in order to be a theory. In addition to that, a theory doesn't have to proven wrong or right either – it's still a theory, no matter how it turns out to be when tested. This argument has ground simply when we think about the great minds of history and how we speak about their "theories" – many of which have been later proven wrong.
SvaraRaderaThank you for your good reflection on theme 3. You made clear what your definition from the first blogpost missed out and added it to your explanation. Though I agree with your understanding of theories, I not completely agree with your relation between hypotheses and a theory. You said that a hypothesis is a proposed theory. I think that hypotheses not just turn into a theory when they are verified. It’s more the collection of several hypotheses that got verified or falsified who build the basement of your theory. They don’t cover the whole construct or question. Each hypothesis focuses on one relation between two characters in a theory. So according to me a theory is based on a collection of hypotheses who were proven right or wrong and through that can a theory be constructed.
SvaraRaderaHi!
SvaraRaderaI also got a deeper understanding of what theory is after the lecture. A theory is true until it’s proven wrong, as you wrote in the example with the bear. My reflection from that is, that it’s impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. You will not know what someone discovery tomorrow or which evidence we will have in 100 years. As you mention we discussed the difference between theories and hypothesis, you had a hard time with the distinction before the seminar and lecture, me as well. My impression is that a lot of people understands theory incorrectly and mix theories with hypothesis; it’s a common mistake. I agree, its good to work with this kind of concepts because it’s useful for our future studies but also knowledgeable. Thanks for you thoughts!
A really well written review. It seems you really got the concept of the topic in terms of definitions (theory as explanatory framework) as well as its results in practical use (Copernicus and the concept of the trees continuing outside the picture).
SvaraRaderaAlso the distinction you make between hypotheses and theory is very well conducted. I think overall your review is very well written and could be used as an example when explaining the topic to someone.
I appreciate that you got Copernicus into all of this – indeed, a very good example of how the frame of thought can change the result. I also liked the part about generalizations and how you explain the difference between theory and hypothesis (I share the same understanding of that difference, but you’ve put it in words better than I could). Thank you for the read!
SvaraRadera