Theme 3: Research and theory

Gregor, S. - The Nature of Theory in Information Systems

Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B.M. - What Theory is Not

What is theory?

Theory is an abstract concept for explaining and describing phenomenons in world, emphasizing the nature of relationships between causal logic and event. It is built on information as a tool to understand why and how things happen or are in a certain way. A theory should be testable, meaning that it is established after have been confirmed by experiments or observations. It can be supported by references, hypotheses, diagrams or variables. A theory is looked upon as an accepted belief when it is accepted by a majority of people.

What is theory not?

There is lack of agreement whether a typology is properly labeled a theory or not, and whether the strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is. Objectivity and validity is beneficially when to postulate a theory, but only using what may be seen as undeniable knowledge does not necessarily make it a successful theory. There is a broad agreement as to what theory is not (Staw & Sutton, 1995). As far as I am concerned, information without context and logical reasoning is not theory. References are not theory, as references to existing theories cannot declare the causal logic which they contain. Variables are not theory, as a set of implications to hypothetical consequences does not make a theoretical argument. Diagrams are not theory, as they lack the logical declarations that are required to evince the underlying reasons, which form the basis of predictions in a theory. Hypotheses are not theory, as they offer statements as to what something is expected to occur, but not why. Finally, Data is not theory, as it describes the empirical patterns that were observed whilst theory explains why empirical patterns are expected to be observed.

Research journal

http://mcs.sagepub.com/

The aim of Media, Culture & Society is to provide a major peer-reviewed forum for research and discussion on the media. This research journal addresses the newer information and communication technologies, within their political, economic, cultural and historical contexts. Also, it raises issues on substantive topics and on critique and innovation in theory and method. Media, Culture & Society has an impact factor of 1.092.

Research paper

I have studied the paper Is there a ‘field’ of media research? – The ‘fragmentation’ issue revisited which was published in the November 2013 issue of Media, Culture & Society, written by John Corner. Appropriately to this theme of the course, the paper puts focus on the meteoric interest of ‘new media’ that brings us to the so-called anxious of ‘fragmentation of the field’, within media research. The main purpose of the paper is to show what is now happening under the heading of ‘media and communications research’ and to recognise the broader pattern of shifts in the nature and conduct of academic inquiry.

Comprehensively, the paper argues that there is a turn towards a more sustained engagement in a great diverse of fields within media, both conceptually and empirically. It claims the strengthening of research that focus on areas like literary studies, geography, history, modern languages and economics. The explanation to this is, not surprisingly, the arrival of ‘new media’ and ‘social media’. The ubiquitous media has penetrated into various academic spheres and led to a range of new disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Therefore, there is a new positioning of media within frameworks of ideas and how to investigate it, which has led to the so-called ‘fragmentation of field’.

As characteristic of basic research, the paper is toward written with the purpose to greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind. This paper is rather short and does not make room for limitations. Far from all concepts are fully explained to the reader, even though it contains a large number of examples and approaches that would be interesting to discuss further. The paper has an expository structure with a personal approach, as the author’s voice is present with support to be found in the literature. Generally, the data used in the paper are based on a contextual analysis including some literary studies. I believe the data are valid and reliable representations of the empirical reality they attempt to capture.

What I experienced as a disadvantage is the 'straggly' structure without a main thread. For example, concepts that first are said to be left out in the paper, are later brought to light. It misleads the reader and creates an unclear path of argumentation for the paper's propositions. A further disadvantage is that the conclusions drawn from the paper does not form a logical extension of the data used in the context. I really miss a conclusion that ties all the content together. On the other hand, the recited issue 'fragmentation of field' is a rather straggly topic. Maybe that explains the unclear structure, as it is quite hard to "sum up" a topic that is discussed in a broad field.

Theory type

I would describe the major theory that is used in my paper as explanation. The author provides explanations of how, why and when the phenomena happens. In this case the phenomena is ‘fragmentation of field’ and the explanation relies on varying views of causality and methods for argumentation. The paper intends to promote greater understanding and insights into the phenomena, with no aim to predict with any precision. The paper’s propostions are not really testable, which is another distinguished attribute for the “explanation”-theory. It rather explains something merely to show how to derive it in a logical argument from premises that include a covering law.

Benefits and limitations

Explaination serves a purpose to show others how the world may be viewed in a certain way, in turn with the aim of bringing about an altered understanding of how things are or why they are as they are. The theory for explaining is suitable at a lower level, when explanations are given for how and why things happened in some particular real-world situation. It also fits well where theory itself is an end product and not expected to lead to predictive, deterministic theory.

A distinguished attribute of explanation theory is that the propositions are not testable. One limitation is that judgment regarding the contribution to knowledge for this type of theory is made primarily on the basis of whether new or interesting insights are provided, and on the basis of plausibility, credibility, consistency, and transferability of the arguments made. Therefore, you have to keep in mind that there are cases that requires more than an explained “story” to qualify as theorizing and lead to conclusion with some generality.

I believe explanation is used beneficially when the proposition is basic, new and interesting. Instead of generalizing, as many generalizations are widely known and rather boring, the theory serve as a “surprise machine”. The point is to make room for artful and exciting insights that leads the reader into amazement, with a set of categories and domain assumptions aimed at clearing away conventional notions.