The seminar about theory made it clear how
complex the definition of theory is, and why theory can so easily be confused
with e.g. references, empirical data or a hypothesis. In this post I will look
back on my previous discussions about theories and reflect about how my
perception of theory has changed since the beginning of the week.
To begin with, I want to examine the
definition I presented in my previous post: “theory is institutionalized ideas of
understanding, used as supporting logic in scientific studies”.
Although it might be considered a very broad definition, I do believe it describes
some of the key factors that characterize theories. I presented this definition
during the seminar and my group agreed that it was a reasonable explanation,
however, I was questioned about whether it is necessary for the ideas to be
institutionalized. After having thought of it I do realize it might not be
necessary for the theories to be institutionalized per se, as theories can be
thought of and constructed in environments outside of the
academic/institutional domain. However, I do believe it adds to the theories
credibility to be formed within academic/institutional field, as there is a
higher probability for the theory to have been falsified, reconstructed,
supported by empirical data and verified (etc.) in this type of professional
circumstances.
During the seminar someone mentioned the idea of defining theory
as “theories are tested assumptions, which is the
temporary truth”. This would mean that theories are not a fact or an absolute
truth. I do agree with this statement to some extent, but as the discussion
continued we were discouraged from using such absolute terms as “proof”,
“truth” or “fact”. Therefore, I want to propose a new definition of theory that
combines my old suggestion and the one presented during the seminar: Theories
are tested ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic for current
scientific studies – until they have been contradicted.
I do realize that this pose a rather long
definition, but it is the most accurate way of defining my idea of the concept.
I believe it is important to emphasize that
theory is only an temporary idea of understanding in order to not confuse it
with knowledge. Theories might support our production of knowledge, but if wont
create any of it’s own as it cannot be proven to be absolute.
Moving on, within the group, we were also
discussion how certain types of theory present an analysis. As I mentioned in
my previous post, my chosen article, “Influential IT
management trends: an international study” by Jerry Luftman et al. (2015) a lot of empirical data is presented without any reflection about
why or how these trends were caused. Therefore I defined this as a theory for
analysing (descriptive article). Initially I considered this kind of theory as
unsatisfying, considering the authors had a lot of data from a long period of
time to reflect upon. As the survey did not contain any explanatory question
and options, I understand the authors have ignored this element completely but
I expected the data to at least be analysed to a fuller extent and used with a
more predictive approach. In response to my criticism, a fellow student
explained to me that the descriptive approach could generate a satisfying,
fundamental study, which in turn could encourage further studies with more
specific approaches. Considering the extensive time period for the study, and
the amount of empirical data I suppose the analysing/descriptive theory should
be sufficient. After all, with that amount of data there probably would be
difficulties reflect upon all reasonable predictions. I suppose in an analysis,
it is not only necessary to find supporting theories, but also to critically
eliminate excessive theories.
Luftman Jerry, Derksen Barry, Dwivedi Rajeev, et al. ”Influential IT
Management Trends: an international Study”, Journal of Information
Technology (2015) 30
Salut,
SvaraRaderaI agree that your definition can be correct in a way for a direct definition of what theory is. But I think it raises a problem; to human that is a bit strong to ignore. Right, the fact that theory will never be true forever because something new can come up and prove it wrong. But it we take your definition as it is : "Theories are tested ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic for current scientific studies – until they have been contradicted." The last part implies the fact that we can NEVER EVER trust a theory, a definition or what we believe is true. And if we act like that, there is no way we are going to improve as human. I believe that we have to trust those theories completely, believe in them. And that a new theory comes and destroy it. We will therefore change our mind about what we believed accepted that we were wrong and move on.
You point it out in your next paragraph, that we should't make the mistake to get confused between theory and knowledge. But How can we be sure knowledge is not theory anymore ?
Your blog raises a lot of question that are interesting to think about, thank you.
Hi! Thanks for a great reflection and good key point to think upon. By reading your text I stumbled upon the sentence “theories are tested assumptions, which is the temporary truth” for a while. I think it is true to say that theory is a temporary "reflection" of truth. I think even in previous lectures we have covered how fragile term truth is as there are so many cases of researchers finding some new great theory, and after some year other researchers come and disprove it. Then, the first theory is still theory, of course, however, it cannot be called truth anymore. Thanks again, seems that you put quite a lot of thought in this!
SvaraRaderaI appreciate that you tried to formulate your own definition of the term theory, because it sure isn’t easy. One of the great lesson learned for me during this week is that theory is much more complex and advanced than I initially thought. However, I think your definition covers up most of what theory is. Well done! During the seminar we also discussed how a theory is only true until it is proven wrong, which is something I absolutely support. I do not think a theory can be definitive verified, which is why we should not stop questioning things if we want the absolute truth.
SvaraRaderaHi!
SvaraRaderaThank you for an exceptionally thorough walk-thru of your growing perception and knowledge of the concept of theory. It was both interesting and enlightening to read your post, and I enjoyed it very much.
Your final definition of theory is all-consuming, at least in my opinion. It covers the ambiguous aspects of the notion; the fact that theories by tradition tend to be contradicted is what made this theme a bit blurry for me, and by adding that factor to the very definition of the notion I believe that you made it more clear. Thank you!
I had similar feeling about my chosen article which also belonged to the Type I (although I have found some characteristics from another theory types later). Partly I understand why the researchers do not conduct the further explorations: it's too time consuming and may disperse their focus. In addition, the paper will become rather a book that will require over a year to collect and process the data, and I am not sure that the institutions that finance their work are interested in publishing one broad research on a narrow topic instead of a few with specific questions in the spotlight.
SvaraRaderaAnd, on the contrary to the first commentator, I don't think we have to fully rely on any specific theory; even more - if we look beyond the established believes, and try to seek for another solutions, we may come to different results. That's what is called development and evolution. As Thomas Edisson said: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work"
Your definition of theory is reasonable, but it is also good that you have analysed your own bias on glorifying theory formed within an institution.
SvaraRaderaThe way you came up with a definition for an alternate way of describing the term theory shows in a clear manner how your knowledge on the subject has progressed during the week. I also like how you connect theories to the production of knowledge and analysis. As you point out, I think one has to balance the research. It has to be concise and precise, but yet described in such detail so that the reader can get a somewhat detailed understanding of how the knowledge has been produced.
SvaraRadera