Theories are examples of natural or social behavior, event, or phenomenon
A scientific theory is a system of constructs and propositions that collectively present a logical, systematic, and coherent explanation of a phenomenon of interest within some assumption and boundary conditions.
Theories should explain why things happen.
Explanations could be idiographic or nomothetic
Idiographic explanations
Detailed, accurate, and valid but may not apply to other similar situations
Nomothetic explanations
Seeks to explain a class of situations or events rather than a specific situation.
A theory is NOT…
data, facts, typologies, taxonomies, empirical findings, a collection of facts or constructs
Benefits
Provide underlying logic of the occurrence of the natural or social phenomenon by explaining what are key drivers and key outcomes of the target phenomenon
Aid in sense-making by further combining findings within a theoretical framework and reconcile contradictory findings
Provide guidance for future research
Contribute to cumulative knowledge building by bridging the gaps between other theories
Causes existing theories to be reevaluated
Limitations
May not always provide adequate explanations
Based on a limited set of constructs and relationships
Designed to be simple explanations when reality may be more complex
Impose blinders or limits researchers “range of vision – miss out on important concepts that aren’t defined in the theory
What are the building blocks of a theory?
David Whetten – four building blocks
Constructs – “What”
Explain the phenomenon of interest
Must be clear and unambiguous definition to specify exactly how the construct will be measured
Variables – measurable representations of abstract constructs
Propositions – “How”
Stated in the declarative form and indicate a cause and effect relationship
Can only be tested by examining the corresponding relationships between measurable variables.
Hypothesis– empirical formulations of propositions stated as relationships between variables
Logic- “Why”
Provides a basis for justification of the proposition
Connects the construct and provides meaning and relevance to the relationships between these constructs
If a theory is to be tested and used, its assumptions that form boundaries must be properly understood
How to evaluate theories?
What makes a good theory?
Logical consistency – if the building blocks are inconsistent with each other then the theory is poor
Explanatory power -explains the target phenomenon better than rival theories
Falsifiability- theories cannot be theories unless they are testable, therefore falsifiability requires rival explanations to ensure constructs are adequately measurable
Parsimony- how much of a phenomenon is explained with how few variables.
How can we apply theories in research?
Steinfeld and Fulk
Build theories inductively based on observed patterns of events and behaviors
Identify different sets of predictors relevant to the phenomenon of interest using a predefined framework
Theorizing is extended or modifies existing theories to explain the new context. This is an efficient way of building new theories off of pre-existing ones.
Apply existing theories in entirely new contexts by drawing upon the structural similarities between the two contexts.
Illustrative examples of five theories frequently used?
Agency theory
To explain two-party relationships whose goals are not congruent with each other.
Theory of planned behavior
Individual behavior represents conscious reasoned choice and is shaped by cognitive thinking and social pressures
TPB is an extension of the theory called the theory of reasoned actions
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)
Explains how innovation are adopted within a population of potential adopters
Gabriel Tarde
4 element in theory
Innovation
Communication channels
Time
Social systems
Rogers
Innovation adaptation is 5 stages
Knowledge
Persuasion
Decision
Implementation
Confirmation
5 innovation characteristics
Relative advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Trialability
Observability
Has been criticized for “pre-innovation bias” – assuming all innovations are beneficial and will eventually diffuse across an entire population.
General deterrence theory
An explanation for crime and method of reducing it
Why do certain individuals engage in deviant antisocial or criminal behaviors
Elaboration likelihood theory
Dual-process of attitude formation and change in the psychology literature (Petty and Cacioppo)
Explains how individuals can be influenced to change their attitudes toward a certain object, event, or behavior
Central route – requires a person to think about issue related arguments, before forming an informed judgment
Peripheral route – external cues rather than on the quality of arguments
2 thoughts on “Summary of Chapter 4”
Kenneth Buchholz
I keep getting caught up in the minutia and pedantry of these chapters. I am not too sure how useful that approach is though rather than just forming a broad general approach.
Popper’s ideas on “degrees of falsifiability” also bleeds a bit into the text’s idea of “parsimony” (which I will leave mostly alone except to say that it seems that the text is conflating simplicity and fruitfulness within the idea of ‘parsimony’ – which is slightly problematic – in my opinion!)
I think the text does a reasonable job of identifying that “theories” are developed within a particular framework – which are then constrained by existing biases (This gets into the the whole epistemological / ontological questions regarding analyzing / understanding where a particular researcher is coming from and where they are likely trying to go with any particular research project). ‘Theories’ are not just free-floating, but are grounded in existing structures / perspectives (which potentially creates an unproductive limitation and utility).
… Kenny
Brooke Fazio
Hey Brittney,
Great summary! You are amazing at taking a lot of information and pulling out the important points. One thing that I found interesting was one of the limitations of theories which states that it “impose[s] blinders or limits researchers range of vision causing them to miss out on important concepts that are not defined in the theory”. This reminded me of our discussion about researchers’ willingness to alter their methods in the middle of research. I think a challenge some researchers face is recognizing their blinders and trying to look outside of them. At least in my research, sometimes you can focus too much on what you theorize should happen instead of taking the data at face value. As Kenny stated above, when developing theories they are “constrained by existing biases” which impact things like our methods. We try to combat this with peer review and reproducing experiments but I don’t think it solves it (this could explain issues with reproducibility). I think the readings from this week that challenge traditional research processes drive this point home. They propose that maybe the way we are conducting research isn’t necessarily the best or only right way. Another important distinction that is made here is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, a hypothesis is testable and is based off of a theory.
I keep getting caught up in the minutia and pedantry of these chapters. I am not too sure how useful that approach is though rather than just forming a broad general approach.
Once again, seeing the name Karl Popper ‘pop’ up in relationship to falsifiability was encouraging. I think what the text misses from Popper is the analysis of “showing falsifiability to be a matter of degree” (Chapter 6, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5536771/mod_resource/content/1/%5BKarl_Popper%5D_The_logic_of_scientific_discovery%28z-lib.org%29.pdf )
Popper’s ideas on “degrees of falsifiability” also bleeds a bit into the text’s idea of “parsimony” (which I will leave mostly alone except to say that it seems that the text is conflating simplicity and fruitfulness within the idea of ‘parsimony’ – which is slightly problematic – in my opinion!)
I think the text does a reasonable job of identifying that “theories” are developed within a particular framework – which are then constrained by existing biases (This gets into the the whole epistemological / ontological questions regarding analyzing / understanding where a particular researcher is coming from and where they are likely trying to go with any particular research project). ‘Theories’ are not just free-floating, but are grounded in existing structures / perspectives (which potentially creates an unproductive limitation and utility).
… Kenny
Hey Brittney,
Great summary! You are amazing at taking a lot of information and pulling out the important points. One thing that I found interesting was one of the limitations of theories which states that it “impose[s] blinders or limits researchers range of vision causing them to miss out on important concepts that are not defined in the theory”. This reminded me of our discussion about researchers’ willingness to alter their methods in the middle of research. I think a challenge some researchers face is recognizing their blinders and trying to look outside of them. At least in my research, sometimes you can focus too much on what you theorize should happen instead of taking the data at face value. As Kenny stated above, when developing theories they are “constrained by existing biases” which impact things like our methods. We try to combat this with peer review and reproducing experiments but I don’t think it solves it (this could explain issues with reproducibility). I think the readings from this week that challenge traditional research processes drive this point home. They propose that maybe the way we are conducting research isn’t necessarily the best or only right way. Another important distinction that is made here is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, a hypothesis is testable and is based off of a theory.