Theoretical issues
On this week
we were discussing the scientific theories and their application to the media
technology studies. In the first place, it is really difficult to define what
theory is. The recommended articles of Gregor and Sutton&Staw were really
helpful for me because I’ve realized how before I incorrectly understood theory
more like a model, i.e. as an objective and simplified version of reality. But
the theories are more widely applicable than models, because the latter mostly
answer only to the question “How it works?”.
On the other
hand, some well-designed models can be used not only for descriptive analysis,
but also for prediction and they can be used as basis for invention and action.
Can they replace the theories in some studies as media technology? I don’t think
so, because the model itself cannot provide an explanation of the facts,
reasons why this model should exist. So we need to provide a theoretical basis
for modeling.
The utility of
theory was discussed by Sutton and Staw, when they describe why we need a
theory in the first place. The scientific research cannot be based only on pure
empirical data; it demands an intellectual instrument for the correct
interpretation and verification of data.
I was also
curious about the cases when the hypothesis cannot be empirically verified because
of the lack of data. Would such a paper “over-theorized” and even speculative? Probably
the whole branch of theoretical physics is no more than speculation when he cannot
obscure some dozen of the hypothetical particles? But as Stephen Hawking
explains in "A Brief History of Time" physical theory is supposed to produce predictions
for a category of physical systems, even if not every prediction can be tested.
But theory cannot exist without the sufficiently strong evidences supporting
it.
Practical skills
I’m trying to develop
my skill of research article critics by commenting on the entries of other students.
Sometimes it’s really difficult to support a “Socratic dialogue” when you have
to ask “deep” or at least meaningful questions, which means not only inquire an
information but also give a reason to think to our opponent.
---
Hawking,
Stephen. A Brief History of Time, 1988.
I very much enjoyed reading your reflection on the differences and similarities between models and theory. It is a difficult question, but I think you described this in a good way. When you propose a theory it is important to back it up with evidence. In the media technology field this is often empirical data, but it does not have to be. The most important issue is that the reader needs to be convinced, and especially the researchers that are involved in the anonymous review process before a paper is published. It is common that papers that propose new theories build on previous research, for example, a review of previous studies. This makes it possible to draw on a wide body of research, rather than one empirical study, conducted in a specific context.
ОтветитьУдалитьStefan, thank you, it was quite a flattering comment. Concerning your observation about theories built on the previous research. You are certainly right, I let it out of sight when I was composing this entry. I suppose this type of papers belongs to some high-levels of theoretical abstraction in opposition to those "middle range theries" based on some empirical data.
УдалитьHey Diana, I enjoyed reading your reflection. I want to add that maybe it's better to divide theory in at least two different categories. Maybe in replicable and non-replicable (like big bang theory). Maybe a third category, which is in between of your two categories, is also needed. What do you think about this? I also think that we sometimes just have to live with the fact that there is a blur between the different terms replicable theory, non-replicable theory and hypothesis.
ОтветитьУдалить