What is theory? Gregor says that this question
is not treated very much in the history. After reading the article by Sutton
and Staw I can’t agree with that. Kaplan and Merton has for example said that
theory is “answers to queries of why”. A little bit unclear and big answer, but
still you can use that definition as a start. It’s about why things happens
more or less, according to these guys. These thing can be anything from
thoughts to events. Sutton and Staw says that “Strong theory, in our view,
delves into underlying processes so as to understand the systematic
reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence.”.
So, if theory is about reasons for why things happen, what is theory not? Sutton and Staw makes it easy for us and puts all their points up, one after the other. They say that theory is not: References (they say that it’s used as a smoke screen to hide that you doesn’t have theory), Data, List of variables, Diagrams, Hypotheses. So, what are these things then? I think it more of tools to create your theory, to answer the why.
My paper this week is “Feature detection and letter identification” from
the journal Vision Research with an IF of 2.414. This articles main goal is to
look at how people recognize objects and in this case how they identify
letters. The paper tries to look at how computation works when people are doing
visual identification of familiar objects. One of the theory they base this paper
on is signal detect ability for identifying one-of-many known signals in white
noise by Van Trees, 1968. The theory type here is EP I think, since it is a mathematical
theory which says what happens, why and especially what number you will get in
which situations.
The benefit with this type of theory is that it is easy to duplicate
their work since the theory often is good described in not only their work but
also other people previous work.
Limitations is just that, that you can be limited by the theory and it’s
guidelines of this theory. If you have guidelines on every step of the theory
you must be critical to this theory and also to if it’s the right theory for
you.
They have some other theories describes in this article, where on is
Wertheimers (1923) theory which says that “a good object is more readily
perceived as a whole”. This is more of the type Analysis with just a very short
description. This is not limited as much as the above theory, but it doesn’t
give you much to work on either.
I agree that blindly following a certain theory is bad practice, which you claim as well. Theories are there to explain and provide a framework for understanding, but also to be criticized and questioned. This is sort of like applying “what does not kill you only makes you stronger” on theory, which opens up prior definitions for improvement.
SvaraRaderaI must say I did not fully understand the Wertheimer’s theory, would you like to explain it shortly with an example?