Theory in Research and Practice

Theory-Data relationship
Doing Research
2020
Theory
Webster
a mental viewing; contemplation
a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be
done
a systematic statement of principles involved
a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been
verified to some degree
that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge
of its principles and methods rather than in its practice;
pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc.
a mere conjecture, or guess
Theory vs. Practice
Theoretical is something non-practical
Theory does not work in practice
Kurt Lewin: 
There is Nothing So Practical as a Good
Theory
Remark: A theory cannot be applied in practice unless the
subject herself understands the theory well
Implication: Methods as a short cut
(
You Cannot Understand a System Until You Try to Change
It
)
Generality
Something that is universally valid
Generality through abstraction
Induction
Details -> general rules
Deduction
General rules -> single occurrence
Theories are shared
If I can predict the occurrence of a sun eclipse
and if I do not tell about it in advance,
perhaps in order to bet about it, the theory is
not operative (but rather pretheoretical;-))
Corollary: Theories are externalised, there is
no private theory
Theories should be proven: to WHOM?
Verification
Key to generality
Argumentation: For each ....
Vulnerability
Deduction
Axiomatic system
Axioms can be chosen and changed
Rules of deduction & proof
Theory and theorizing
Theory: abstract and encompassing conceptual
system that claims to give an universal
explanation for the phenomena within an
empirical domain (high intension and extension)
Newtonian physics, Evolutionary theory, Functionalist
sociology, Behaviorist psychology
theorizing: forming concepts and articulating their
relationships to better discuss empirical
phenomena studied.
Guides further empirical research, conceptual work
and further theorizing.
Symbolic interactionism, work systems,
… can lead to a Theory. BUT a Theory can be a
unhelpful goal due to 
under-determination
 and 
over-
determination
 problems
Many types of theories
The kind of theories varies
The adequacy of different kinds of theory to
specific topics and domains varies
The make-up of how theories relate to
emprical phenomena varies
Different sorts of linkages to methodologies,
methods, instruments
Questions in everyday language
How are these things, what is their status?
values or given properties / new properties
Why are they as they are?
Are they always in this way?
Could they be in some other way?
What would be needed to make them to be in
this other way?
Further questions
What makes these two objects appear as different?
Can they be grouped into different classes?
What is the purpose of such classification?
Concepts as classifications
What items belong to the domain of this concept?
Theoretical statement is a relationship between two
or more concepts (one definition)
Types of Theory
Types of research rationales
Doing Research 2013 sh
Types of Theory?!
There are several different ways to classify different
theories
 within philosophy of science, in Design, CHI, Soc. Sci, in Org. Sci,
Most privilege one type of theory, ignorant about at least
some of the theories they discuss
Purpose of research, conduct of research, assumptions of reality
Most classifications have highly debatable assumptions
and interpretations
= Beware: epistemic politics
S. Gregor ” clarifying particularly from pp. 7 onwards
(albeit with some outright mistakes and blind spots)
Types of Theories in information systems 
(s.
Gregor), all present in Design as well
(i) theory for analysing and describing,
(ii) theory for understanding,
(iii) theory for predicting,
(iv) theory for explaining and predicting, and
(v) theory for design and action.
Theory for analyzing and describing
”What is”
1) Naming theory: 
naming theory is a description of
the dimensions or characteristics of some
phenomenon.
2) A classification theory is more elaborate in that it
states that the dimensions or characteristics of a
given phenomena are structurally interrelated.
The dimensions may be mutually exclusive, overlapping,
hierarchical, or sequential.
Classification theories are frequently referred to as
typologies, taxonomies or frameworks.
Theory for understanding
“how” and “why” something occurred, weak 
prediction
of future : ”theorizing”
1a) Defamilarizing device to clear away misguided /
conventional notions for improved insight
1b) 
Sensitizing device for more apt understanding in
future work
2) “Conjectures” drawn from a real world situation in
interpretive (case) study of how and why things
happen(ed)
NOTE:  Always includes ”what”, what may include
elements of how and why, often disguised as
classificatory principles
NOTE2 Gregor 1a examples erroneous: about 1b
Theory for predicting
 “what will be”
Statistical correlation theories
In a strict sense very few in Design research,
probably only in mechanics, but features as a
component part of a theory
Usual caveats of correlational and statistical
analyses apply
Theory for explaining and predicting 1
“what is”, “how”, “why” and “what will be”.
  -- Theory with
capital T. ”Mature theory”
A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that
presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the
purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena.
Few examples around design: ”Diffusion of Innovations”
Over 5000 studies
Everett Rogers 1962…2003
… highly contested core assumptions by now, subject to disagreement at least
since 1970s
Cumulation and easy accessibility the main strenght
NOTE: Gregor would like to see ”Grounded theory” (Glaser&Strauss, 1967;
Clarke, 2005) leading to ”Theory” but this far is seldom the aim.
Theory for explaining and predicting 2:
Process theory
Process theory – Longitudinal studies with emphasis
on ”underlying generative mechanisms”
explains the temporal order of events, based on a
story or historical narrative. (
Van de Ven, 1999;
Huber, 1995)
…With fine line to searching for ”dynamics”
…(Miettinen, 1993; Hyysalo, 2004)
 Historiographers & ethnographers… do not see
themselves as ”explaining” but describing how, why,
when and what: ”thick description”
Theory for design and action
“how to do” something.
Large part of Design work and publishing …
1.
Engineerin type research, Prototyping approaches, …
2.
Action research, participatory action research
3.
Design approaches: MUST, Idealized consumer design, contextual design
Undertheorized as theories: ”Sensitizing fremework” ”Approach”, ”Recipe”
”Methodology”…
Require different criteria for evaluation and inference:
”validating a theory”…only its one realization with many other sources…
”Arguing by success”… who measures and how … or merely that it could be
done!
”replicability” often problem: repeating the device, or repeating the solution.
Etc.
”Toothbrush syndrome”:your brush is great for you to use, but not so
appealing for others
NOTE: often forced to play by the rules of other theories & just as often let to
play without ANY rules whatsoever.
HOW DO THEORIES EXIST?
 
In philosophy of science
Independent existence (realist)
Laws of nature
Wait for us to be uncovered
Intolerance for inconsistence
Human construct (instrumentalist)
Scaffoldings
Means for sense-making
Partial theories in (relatively) peaceful coexistence
AS A PART OF SCIENCE
Science
Results produced by science
Ideal results of science it may produce in the future
Methods that are factually used in science
Methods that ought to be used in science
Community / communities formed by the scientists
Institutions where science is practiced (e.g
universities, research programs)
‘Traditional’ or ‘Espoused’ view of Science
Objectivity
Rationality
Criticality
Intellectuality
 demarcate science from all else
Vs. Self image, public image, rhetorical image of
science. 
Not wholly wrong, but highly
biased.
‘Received view’ of theory in analytic philosophy –1970
“locial empirism” “positivism”
Observations considered neutral and
certain
Theories comprized of set of propositions
that could be divided to observational and
theoretical propositions
Hypothesis deduced from theory, tested in
empirical observation, theory supported or
falsified by observations
Theoretical propositions
E
mpirical
reality
Observational
propositions
Hypotheses made
based on theory
Hypotheses
testing verifying
or falsifying the
theory
Vs. Received view
Philosophers in their offices
weak connection to scientific realities
little attention to doing observation, experiments,
and inferences from these
2 major problems:
No theoretical proposition stands alone
“Theory-ladenness” of observation
Underdetermination of theory by empirical
evidence 1: Duhem
 Scientific experiment (or observation) never settles
alone the faith of a hypothesis, but always together
with auxiliary hypotheses
About factors affecting the system studied, about test
apparatuses work, and if apparatus is valid and reliable or
about the relations between theory and experiment
If an experiment “fails” 
some problem
 prevails in its
relationship to theory.
Often impossible to determine or test where the mismatch
lies
This is an accepted fact in present phil. Of science
Underdetermination of theory by empirical
evidence 2: Quine
Duhem + theory is not A proposition, but an integrated
network of propositions that is connected to empirical
realities only in its edges.
It is possible to “save” any hypothesis--Whichever of the
propositions can be held “true” if one is willing to make
sufficiently drastic re-arrangements in the other parts of the
theory-hypotheses--experiment set-ups--interpretations
e.g. chrystal spheres prevailing for 100 years since Kopernicus
Theoretically right, but in practice over-blown
Lakatos: Hard core + protective belt : Abandoning hard core
proposition is to abandon theory (ptolemaios vs. kopernicus)
Theoretical propositions
E
mpirical
reality
Observational
propositions
Hypotheses made
based on theory
Hypotheses
testing verifying
or falsifying the
theory
Aux hypotheses and
appratuses
“Theory-ladenness” of observation 1:
Observation as in ability to see
1)
Previous experience and practice effects the ability
to make observations (skill + tuning)
2)
 Expectations guide our attention and observation
(not seeing the unexpected, seeing what we hope
to see in a fuzzy situation)
[more contested]
3) Beliefs and assumptions (physiologically) shape what we
see 
 
“Theory-ladenness” of observation 2:
observation as in getting to see
1.
Theoretical assumptions guide what is selected as the
research topic and site, data that gets gathered and research
questions asked
2.
Observation/experiment is scientifically interesting only
when it is given scientific interpretation
1.
Evaluation
 of o/e: what is part of the system, validity of the research
method, reliability of method and analysis
2.
Interpretation
 
of observations to bridge them to theory:
operationalizations of theoretical terms for observables, auxiliary
hypotheses (simplifications, presumptions of the parameters and
their values, “grain size of data” chosen for analysis) etc.
“Theory-ladenness” of observation 3:
Phenomena and data
Bogen & Woodward:
Phenomen: steady and repeatable effect or process
that allows prediction or systematic explanation by
theory and can act as evidence for this theory
Data: Evidence produced by measurement, by
experimentation or by observation for the existence
of the phenomenon or its features
Theories concern/explain phenomena, not data &
researchers do not examine data as such (pictures of
particle-trajectories in an accelerator)  but as
evidence of phenomena … which are theoretically
constructed beyond evidence from data.
Theoretical propositions
Observational
propositions
Hypotheses
made based on
theory
Hypotheses
testing
verifying or
falsifying the
theory
Aux hypotheses
and appratuses
TLO1-A
Data /
Phenomen
TLO2-G
TLO3?-C
Thomas S. Kuhn
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, 1970
Pre-paradigmatic science
Emergence of a paradigm
Normal Science
Crisis
Revolution
New Normal Science
Paradigm A: exemplar
An exemplar & articulation what makes it an
examplary piece of research, namely how it sets
Criteria for what questions are important and relevant
for the field
Conceptual, methodological and instrumental tools for
solving such questions
Criteria for evaluating the adequacy of solutions
Conventions and forums for presenting and
communicating research findings
= A great deal of what research does is 
tacit 
understanding:
we don’t re-invent each element anew but build on
successful past work by imitating and varying it
Paradigm B: Scientific Matrix
Joint training and scientific background of
researchers
Shared literature, skill, intuition, evaluation skills,
generalizations, ways of communication
Shared underlying (metaphysical, ontological)
assumptions regarding the domain
What are meaningful research questions in principle and in
practice: what is worth investing time and money
Shared cognitive values
Goals, evaluation criteria, good lab practice…
Theoretical propositions
Observational
propositions
Hypotheses
made based on
theory
Hypotheses
testing
verifying or
falsifying the
theory
Aux hypotheses
and appratuses
TLO1-A
Data /
Phenomen
TLO2-G
TLO3?-C
Paradigm, A, B, C
Pre-paradigmatic science
Paradigms missing: Kuhn social sciences
No universally shared criteria or exemplars
Research done by individuals or small groups
Debate focused over ontological, epistemic and
methodological questions
Systematic theory development and theory testing
has to wait until these debates are solved
Little cumulation of research (in comparison to
paradigmatic “normal science” that allows
specialization)
Normal Science
Puzzle solving
The scientific enterprise as a whole does from time to time
prove useful, open up new territory, display order and test
long-accepted beliefs.
Nevertheless, 
the individual
 engaged on a normal research
problem 
is almost never doing any of these things.
What then challenges him is the conviction that, if only he
is skillful enough, he will succeed in solving a puzzle that
no one has solved before or solved so well.
 Examples in Physics
Ptolemaios
Copernicus
Newton
Einstein
Use of paradigms
Rules to follow in order to qualify as research
Accepted rules and methods also determine
which parts of reality can be studied and what
kind of questions can be asked
Non-reflective: no critical doubts against the
rules are allowed and discussed… or rather,
encouraged and kept worth pursuing
Strengths of Paradigms
Cumulativity
Accuracy, complexity
A revolution destroys big parts of common
knowledge
Unnecessary to repeat basic things that every
scholar knows
Maintenance mechanism in review processes
Anomalies
Findings that do not fit with the dominant paradigm
Ideally one anomaly should invalidate the paradigm:
induction is no longer valid
Quine-Duhem:
Instead, often complicated explanation mechanisms are
generated
Changes in auxiliary hypotheses modified rather than the core of
paradigm
Cost of abandoning a paradigm high: confusion, loss of extant
work…
Crisis may ensue…but paradigms only abandoned when a
more 
promising
 alternative emerges… (exp clarity,
extension)
Admitted through the proponents of the old dying out…
Paradigm as (leading to) Social
Institutions
Institutionalization solidifies the power over the
cognitive, social and economic resources in the field:
Academic Positions, Funding, Journals…
Rules how to do good research: Positions filled on
the basis of research competence – A paradigm
provides clear criteria what is good, mediocre, bad
and non-research
Legitimation: the review process
Deviant papers are not published
Problems with paradigms
”Incommensurability” (= Questions about whether and how different paradigms fit
together)
Different topics, phenomena and solutions (Newton vs Einstein)
Dissociation: we no longer understand what exactly old concepts denote (intension,
extension)
Meaning incommensurability: different terms have different meanings for they ara a
part of different net of propositions (see theory ladenness, underdetermination)
Lakatos: research tradition, not theory or paradigm is the unit of change
Many hypotheses and parts of paradigms CAN be tested and P’s hence compared
”Belief” vs. rational evaluation of predictive power leading to adopting new
Uncritical research heroized
Implicit rules
Visible only when someone breaks them
Heroizes normal science and uncritical compliance
Evidence is from ”pre-modern science” physics
Post-Kuhnian views of science
 
Peter Galison: “Image and Logic”
1997
Subcultures / traditions 
within 
micro-physics
Instrumentation, Experimentation 1,2, x (e.g. spark & bubble
chamber), theory (1,…2,3, x)
Subgroups collaborate despite difference in classification,
significance and standards of demonstration.
Each has disjuctions and their quasi-independent
developmental paths: sometimes joined with others,
sometimes separate
“Trading zones”: by which subgroups “trade” their models
and findings with others to advance their cause
“Intercalation”:
“Intercalated periodization” a.k.a “Cable metaphor” :
discontinuities in different places, help establish continuity
VS. Logical positivism: reduction to experience;
Antipositivism: reduction to theory; Kuhn: reduction to
synchonized (dis)continuity
Fujimura 1996: “Crafting Science” in cancer
research
Competing theories of cancer in Bio-medicine, e.g.
retro-virus
“Oncogene hypothesis” began to gain ground
“Theory-methods package” not only theory but
instruments, methods, new questions
“Doable problems”: results within a research project
“Bandwagon”: Funding, positions, instruments,
theories, journals… results in… Dominant Oncogene
theory
VS. Kuhn: Hypothesis tied to methods & instruments,
new theory at a late stage
Star 1989 “Regions of the mind”: locationist vs.
diffusionists brain research
Brain functions have locations (neo-phrenology)
Brain functions diffused throughout the brain
Raging debate from 1870 to early 1900
Locationists “won” due to work they did in connecting
Autopsies, experimental lesions, vivisections, electrical stimulation,
pathological and histological studies & surgery … queens gardens
hospital as the hub allowing this
BUT the ‘locationism that won’ almost closer to diffusionism
than its original strict loci-fuction scheme
 They adopted ideas and counter arguments, but dressed them in
locationist concepts
They became involved in experiments otherwise unlikely to have been
conducted, hence opening terrain for questioning  … ETC
To summarize
 
Theory…phenomena
Paradigm / research tradition / sub-culture/ approach
Theory or theory / theories
Operationalizations, auxiliary hypotheses
Instrumentation and research set-up to get to the phenomena
Gathering data as evidence
Observing and Interpreting the data
 
Phenomena (data made science) 
Ordering the findings about phenomena
Explanations, bridging to extant research and back to theory
Theory or theory… paradigm / research tradition
Academic work … phenomena
Institutions: research, use, development
Funding
Theory-methodology-methods-instruments
Conduct of the empirical study
‘Gathered raw data’ and its interpretation
Conceptualization and Reporting
 
Phenomena 
 Methods, instruments 
 theory
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Exploring the relationship between theory and data, the practicality of theories, generality in abstraction, shared theories, verification in research, and the significance of theorizing in empirical domains.

  • Research
  • Theory
  • Data
  • Practice
  • Empirical

Uploaded on Dec 16, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Theory-Data relationship Doing Research 2020

  2. Theory Webster a mental viewing; contemplation a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done a systematic statement of principles involved a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc. a mere conjecture, or guess

  3. Theory vs. Practice Theoretical is something non-practical Theory does not work in practice Kurt Lewin: There is Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory Remark: A theory cannot be applied in practice unless the subject herself understands the theory well Implication: Methods as a short cut (You Cannot Understand a System Until You Try to Change It)

  4. Generality Something that is universally valid Generality through abstraction Induction Details -> general rules Deduction General rules -> single occurrence

  5. Theories are shared If I can predict the occurrence of a sun eclipse and if I do not tell about it in advance, perhaps in order to bet about it, the theory is not operative (but rather pretheoretical;-)) Corollary: Theories are externalised, there is no private theory Theories should be proven: to WHOM?

  6. Verification Key to generality Argumentation: For each .... Vulnerability Deduction Axiomatic system Axioms can be chosen and changed Rules of deduction & proof

  7. Theory and theorizing Theory: abstract and encompassing conceptual system that claims to give an universal explanation for the phenomena within an empirical domain (high intension and extension) Newtonian physics, Evolutionary theory, Functionalist sociology, Behaviorist psychology theorizing: forming concepts and articulating their relationships to better discuss empirical phenomena studied. Guides further empirical research, conceptual work and further theorizing. Symbolic interactionism, work systems, can lead to a Theory. BUT a Theory can be a unhelpful goal due to under-determination and over- determination problems

  8. Many types of theories The kind of theories varies The adequacy of different kinds of theory to specific topics and domains varies The make-up of how theories relate to emprical phenomena varies Different sorts of linkages to methodologies, methods, instruments

  9. Questions in everyday language How are these things, what is their status? values or given properties / new properties Why are they as they are? Are they always in this way? Could they be in some other way? What would be needed to make them to be in this other way?

  10. Further questions What makes these two objects appear as different? Can they be grouped into different classes? What is the purpose of such classification? Concepts as classifications What items belong to the domain of this concept? Theoretical statement is a relationship between two or more concepts (one definition)

  11. Types of Theory Types of research rationales Doing Research 2013 sh

  12. Types of Theory?! There are several different ways to classify different theories within philosophy of science, in Design, CHI, Soc. Sci, in Org. Sci, Most privilege one type of theory, ignorant about at least some of the theories they discuss Purpose of research, conduct of research, assumptions of reality Most classifications have highly debatable assumptions and interpretations = Beware: epistemic politics S. Gregor clarifying particularly from pp. 7 onwards (albeit with some outright mistakes and blind spots)

  13. Types of Theories in information systems (s. Gregor), all present in Design as well (i) theory for analysing and describing, (ii) theory for understanding, (iii) theory for predicting, (iv) theory for explaining and predicting, and (v) theory for design and action.

  14. Theory for analyzing and describing What is 1) Naming theory: naming theory is a description of the dimensions or characteristics of some phenomenon. 2) A classification theory is more elaborate in that it states that the dimensions or characteristics of a given phenomena are structurally interrelated. The dimensions may be mutually exclusive, overlapping, hierarchical, or sequential. Classification theories are frequently referred to as typologies, taxonomies or frameworks.

  15. Theory for understanding how and why something occurred, weak prediction of future : theorizing 1a) Defamilarizing device to clear away misguided / conventional notions for improved insight 1b) Sensitizing device for more apt understanding in future work 2) Conjectures drawn from a real world situation in interpretive (case) study of how and why things happen(ed) NOTE: Always includes what , what may include elements of how and why, often disguised as classificatory principles NOTE2 Gregor 1a examples erroneous: about 1b

  16. Theory for predicting what will be Statistical correlation theories In a strict sense very few in Design research, probably only in mechanics, but features as a component part of a theory Usual caveats of correlational and statistical analyses apply

  17. Theory for explaining and predicting 1 what is , how , why and what will be . -- Theory with capital T. Mature theory A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena. Few examples around design: Diffusion of Innovations Over 5000 studies Everett Rogers 1962 2003 highly contested core assumptions by now, subject to disagreement at least since 1970s Cumulation and easy accessibility the main strenght NOTE: Gregor would like to see Grounded theory (Glaser&Strauss, 1967; Clarke, 2005) leading to Theory but this far is seldom the aim.

  18. Theory for explaining and predicting 2: Process theory Process theory Longitudinal studies with emphasis on underlying generative mechanisms explains the temporal order of events, based on a story or historical narrative. (Van de Ven, 1999; Huber, 1995) With fine line to searching for dynamics (Miettinen, 1993; Hyysalo, 2004) Historiographers & ethnographers do not see themselves as explaining but describing how, why, when and what: thick description

  19. Theory for design and action 1. 2. 3. how to do something. Large part of Design work and publishing Engineerin type research, Prototyping approaches, Action research, participatory action research Design approaches: MUST, Idealized consumer design, contextual design Undertheorized as theories: Sensitizing fremework Approach , Recipe Methodology Require different criteria for evaluation and inference: validating a theory only its one realization with many other sources Arguing by success who measures and how or merely that it could be done! replicability often problem: repeating the device, or repeating the solution. Etc. Toothbrush syndrome :your brush is great for you to use, but not so appealing for others NOTE: often forced to play by the rules of other theories & just as often let to play without ANY rules whatsoever.

  20. HOW DO THEORIES EXIST?

  21. In philosophy of science Independent existence (realist) Laws of nature Wait for us to be uncovered Intolerance for inconsistence Human construct (instrumentalist) Scaffoldings Means for sense-making Partial theories in (relatively) peaceful coexistence AS A PART OF SCIENCE

  22. Science Results produced by science Ideal results of science it may produce in the future Methods that are factually used in science Methods that ought to be used in science Community / communities formed by the scientists Institutions where science is practiced (e.g universities, research programs)

  23. Traditional or Espoused view of Science Objectivity Rationality Criticality Intellectuality demarcate science from all else Vs. Self image, public image, rhetorical image of science. Not wholly wrong, but highly biased.

  24. Received view of theory in analytic philosophy 1970 locial empirism positivism Observations considered neutral and certain Theories comprized of set of propositions that could be divided to observational and theoretical propositions Hypothesis deduced from theory, tested in empirical observation, theory supported or falsified by observations

  25. Theoretical propositions Hypotheses made based on theory Observational propositions Hypotheses testing verifying or falsifying the theory Empirical reality

  26. Vs. Received view Philosophers in their offices weak connection to scientific realities little attention to doing observation, experiments, and inferences from these 2 major problems: No theoretical proposition stands alone Theory-ladenness of observation

  27. Underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence 1: Duhem Scientific experiment (or observation) never settles alone the faith of a hypothesis, but always together with auxiliary hypotheses About factors affecting the system studied, about test apparatuses work, and if apparatus is valid and reliable or about the relations between theory and experiment If an experiment fails some problem prevails in its relationship to theory. Often impossible to determine or test where the mismatch lies This is an accepted fact in present phil. Of science

  28. Underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence 2: Quine Duhem + theory is not A proposition, but an integrated network of propositions that is connected to empirical realities only in its edges. It is possible to save any hypothesis--Whichever of the propositions can be held true if one is willing to make sufficiently drastic re-arrangements in the other parts of the theory-hypotheses--experiment set-ups--interpretations e.g. chrystal spheres prevailing for 100 years since Kopernicus Theoretically right, but in practice over-blown Lakatos: Hard core + protective belt : Abandoning hard core proposition is to abandon theory (ptolemaios vs. kopernicus)

  29. Theoretical propositions Hypotheses made based on theory Observational propositions Aux hypotheses and appratuses Hypotheses testing verifying or falsifying the theory Empirical reality

  30. Theory-ladenness of observation 1: Observation as in ability to see 1) Previous experience and practice effects the ability to make observations (skill + tuning) Expectations guide our attention and observation (not seeing the unexpected, seeing what we hope to see in a fuzzy situation) [more contested] 3) Beliefs and assumptions (physiologically) shape what we see 2)

  31. Theory-ladenness of observation 2: observation as in getting to see 1. Theoretical assumptions guide what is selected as the research topic and site, data that gets gathered and research questions asked Observation/experiment is scientifically interesting only when it is given scientific interpretation 1. Evaluation of o/e: what is part of the system, validity of the research method, reliability of method and analysis 2. Interpretationof observations to bridge them to theory: operationalizations of theoretical terms for observables, auxiliary hypotheses (simplifications, presumptions of the parameters and their values, grain size of data chosen for analysis) etc. 2.

  32. Theory-ladenness of observation 3: Phenomena and data Bogen & Woodward: Phenomen: steady and repeatable effect or process that allows prediction or systematic explanation by theory and can act as evidence for this theory Data: Evidence produced by measurement, by experimentation or by observation for the existence of the phenomenon or its features Theories concern/explain phenomena, not data & researchers do not examine data as such (pictures of particle-trajectories in an accelerator) but as evidence of phenomena which are theoretically constructed beyond evidence from data.

  33. Theoretical propositions TLO1-A Hypotheses made based on theory Observational propositions TLO2-G TLO3?-C Aux hypotheses and appratuses Hypotheses testing verifying or falsifying the theory Data / Phenomen

  34. Thomas S. Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, 1970 Pre-paradigmatic science Emergence of a paradigm Normal Science Crisis Revolution New Normal Science

  35. Paradigm A: exemplar An exemplar & articulation what makes it an examplary piece of research, namely how it sets Criteria for what questions are important and relevant for the field Conceptual, methodological and instrumental tools for solving such questions Criteria for evaluating the adequacy of solutions Conventions and forums for presenting and communicating research findings = A great deal of what research does is tacit understanding: we don t re-invent each element anew but build on successful past work by imitating and varying it

  36. Paradigm B: Scientific Matrix Joint training and scientific background of researchers Shared literature, skill, intuition, evaluation skills, generalizations, ways of communication Shared underlying (metaphysical, ontological) assumptions regarding the domain What are meaningful research questions in principle and in practice: what is worth investing time and money Shared cognitive values Goals, evaluation criteria, good lab practice

  37. Paradigm, A, B, C Theoretical propositions TLO1-A Hypotheses made based on theory Observational propositions TLO2-G TLO3?-C Aux hypotheses and appratuses Hypotheses testing verifying or falsifying the theory Data / Phenomen

  38. Pre-paradigmatic science Paradigms missing: Kuhn social sciences No universally shared criteria or exemplars Research done by individuals or small groups Debate focused over ontological, epistemic and methodological questions Systematic theory development and theory testing has to wait until these debates are solved Little cumulation of research (in comparison to paradigmatic normal science that allows specialization)

  39. Normal Science Puzzle solving The scientific enterprise as a whole does from time to time prove useful, open up new territory, display order and test long-accepted beliefs. Nevertheless, the individual engaged on a normal research problem is almost never doing any of these things. What then challenges him is the conviction that, if only he is skillful enough, he will succeed in solving a puzzle that no one has solved before or solved so well.

  40. Examples in Physics Ptolemaios Copernicus Newton Einstein

  41. Use of paradigms Rules to follow in order to qualify as research Accepted rules and methods also determine which parts of reality can be studied and what kind of questions can be asked Non-reflective: no critical doubts against the rules are allowed and discussed or rather, encouraged and kept worth pursuing

  42. Strengths of Paradigms Cumulativity Accuracy, complexity A revolution destroys big parts of common knowledge Unnecessary to repeat basic things that every scholar knows Maintenance mechanism in review processes

  43. Anomalies Findings that do not fit with the dominant paradigm Ideally one anomaly should invalidate the paradigm: induction is no longer valid Quine-Duhem: Instead, often complicated explanation mechanisms are generated Changes in auxiliary hypotheses modified rather than the core of paradigm Cost of abandoning a paradigm high: confusion, loss of extant work Crisis may ensue but paradigms only abandoned when a more promising alternative emerges (exp clarity, extension) Admitted through the proponents of the old dying out

  44. Paradigm as (leading to) Social Institutions Institutionalization solidifies the power over the cognitive, social and economic resources in the field: Academic Positions, Funding, Journals Rules how to do good research: Positions filled on the basis of research competence A paradigm provides clear criteria what is good, mediocre, bad and non-research Legitimation: the review process Deviant papers are not published

  45. Problems with paradigms Incommensurability (= Questions about whether and how different paradigms fit together) Different topics, phenomena and solutions (Newton vs Einstein) Dissociation: we no longer understand what exactly old concepts denote (intension, extension) Meaning incommensurability: different terms have different meanings for they ara a part of different net of propositions (see theory ladenness, underdetermination) Lakatos: research tradition, not theory or paradigm is the unit of change Many hypotheses and parts of paradigms CAN be tested and P s hence compared Belief vs. rational evaluation of predictive power leading to adopting new Uncritical research heroized Implicit rules Visible only when someone breaks them Heroizes normal science and uncritical compliance Evidence is from pre-modern science physics

  46. Post-Kuhnian views of science

  47. Peter Galison: Image and Logic 1997 Subcultures / traditions within micro-physics Instrumentation, Experimentation 1,2, x (e.g. spark & bubble chamber), theory (1, 2,3, x) Subgroups collaborate despite difference in classification, significance and standards of demonstration. Each has disjuctions and their quasi-independent developmental paths: sometimes joined with others, sometimes separate Trading zones : by which subgroups trade their models and findings with others to advance their cause Intercalation : Intercalated periodization a.k.a Cable metaphor : discontinuities in different places, help establish continuity VS. Logical positivism: reduction to experience; Antipositivism: reduction to theory; Kuhn: reduction to synchonized (dis)continuity

  48. Fujimura 1996: Crafting Science in cancer research Competing theories of cancer in Bio-medicine, e.g. retro-virus Oncogene hypothesis began to gain ground Theory-methods package not only theory but instruments, methods, new questions Doable problems : results within a research project Bandwagon : Funding, positions, instruments, theories, journals results in Dominant Oncogene theory VS. Kuhn: Hypothesis tied to methods & instruments, new theory at a late stage

  49. Star 1989 Regions of the mind: locationist vs. diffusionists brain research Brain functions have locations (neo-phrenology) Brain functions diffused throughout the brain Raging debate from 1870 to early 1900 Locationists won due to work they did in connecting Autopsies, experimental lesions, vivisections, electrical stimulation, pathological and histological studies & surgery queens gardens hospital as the hub allowing this BUT the locationism that won almost closer to diffusionism than its original strict loci-fuction scheme They adopted ideas and counter arguments, but dressed them in locationist concepts They became involved in experiments otherwise unlikely to have been conducted, hence opening terrain for questioning ETC

  50. To summarize

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#