In the beginning of my reflection I have to admit that I forgot to describe the used theory type in the first blog post about theme 3. The theory used in my paper was the Theory of Planned Behavior. I think it belongs to the type of explanation, because the whole theory surrounds and describes the actions that lead to behavior. The theory focuses mostly on causalities that lead to the so called “planned behavior“.
Compared to the first two themes, theme 3 was not as abstract anymore as the question what knowledge is and how it affects our percetions, or the similarities between enlightenment and myth. Of course theory is always something abstract, because a theory is nothing that exists or we can perceive with our senses. A theory tries to explain what is occuring or not occuring in an abstract version of the reality.
In the seminar last week and the group discussions I felt for the first time the interdisciplinary character of our programme. It was interesting to get more perspectives on theories from students who did already a lot of research and the ones who had to think for the first time about the role of theories in research. So in the last blog post I focussed too much on the theory that it was based on and not the theory that the outcome of the research. So the important mediators for the investigated selfie behavior, like narcissm were just left out by me. In the group discussion we had, I realized that the newly produced part of the theory is at least as important at the theory a research is based on. In my opinion it is interesting what researchers do with these small extensions of the established and more “old“ theories. Are they valued by other or not? Is it really an extension of the theory or was the good old theory just used to justify the importance of a research and not let it “go down“, just because a completely new theory was found. I think many researchers nowadays make it easy for themselves, because they just use the existing structured theory and apply it to the new circumstances or changes in the media world. The question is, if these theories can actually be applied for all these new fields of social media and so on? During the research for my Bachelor thesis (that was about the motives of Facebook use of different aged groups) I had really much the feeling, that a lot of people search for patterns in new fields that can be explained by old theories. Instead of accessing a new field open minded with the perspective for maybe a new theory that could explain even better what occurs or not occurs. At the same point the question is how much room for new theories exists? Would a research with a new theory or approach be as accepted as the same research based on older theories?
Thank you for an interesting post, and I agree with you that theory tries to explain what is occurring or not occurring. I also agree that with this weeks theme the interdisciplinary character started to show a bit more, and it resulted in some interesting discussion in my seminar group. During the small one it was interesting to hear how people had viewed theory during their BA and the differences.
AntwortenLöschenI thought it was interesting what you wrote about "old" theories and that the newly produced part of the theory is at least as important at the theory a research is based on. I agree with you and it makes me wonder about the future and with technology and social media developing so fast, can old theories really keep up? And isn't it a big problem if people make it easy for themselves and search for patterns to fit old theories, just to not "go down" like you put it. You raise some interesting questions!
Hi! I found your reflection very engrossing! In my group, during the seminar we also had this idea that researchers build quite a lot on already existing theories or already tested experiments, while some new theories, methods might not be taken seriously simply as they are quite new and untested. Taken that, your questions in the end of your blog is really thought-provoking. Thanks for your great text!
AntwortenLöschenSalut,
AntwortenLöschenI don't think that theory is as abstract as knowledge can be. However I agree that a theory explains what is occurring and what is not, or at least why it doesn't. But the nuance between abstract and concrete reality makes the difference in your argument about theory. If we use theory in only an abstract reality, does that mean that the results are therefore abstract. At what point does the theory becomes concrete ? Does it work as phases ?
You're making a good point that the newly produced point of a theory, that comes and add up to an older one, makes both of those as important to each other. But as you imply, this way of doing thing, adding to older theory does work only in a world filled of innovation. How can we use theories of the past about a world of the past in order to understand the actual word with things that didn't exist in the older one... I completely agree on that point with you and I hadn't think about that.
Finally, I think there is plenty of room for new theories, we just have to find it.
Thank you for this very nice reflection
Hi! Good reflection, you discuss some very interesting issues.
AntwortenLöschenI would like to elaborate on your question 'how much room there is for new theory?' I do think that there is room for new theory as a theory is not (really) proven, all we have is evidence that it is build on and that is why we are secure about it. And for this reason new evidence can be gathered and then we will have a new theory, as this is what a theory is build on.
Thanks for your interesting perspectives!
Hi,
AntwortenLöschenInteresting discussion!
I don't think I would completely agree with calling theory abstract. Initially, the hypothesis that is the foundation of the theory might be more abstract, but after all, theory is backed up by some empirical data used as a foundation to understand the world. I believe this makes theory a bit more concrete.
However, I really like the rest of your discussion! I agree that a lot of new phenomena would benefit from being explained in with new theories in accordance with new terms, as the technology and social structure is rapidly changing. I think the reason why old theories are used is because - as you say - it is easier to get the study approved, and also, it is easier to make people understand the world in comparison to old, familiar standards. Definitely an important debate!
You've brought really interesting questions to the table, especially in the part of the old and new theories. In my opinion, until the theory is considered to be wrong and replaced by another theory, it still can be used as the foundation for the further investigations.
AntwortenLöschenOf course, we cannot affirm that the Earth is flat any more (although this ancient belief is still called a theory) but we can use other theories from the unexplored fields such as cognitive science or neurobiology as the base for the scientific research.
Nice saved with your summary of your selected paper. You have a good point when it comes to the aspect of traditional theories that are applied in traditional sciences. And we will use them to conceptualize our world until we are presented with new ones that are more valid. With media technology as a relatively new field of research, there is a need of new approaches to the research.
AntwortenLöschenHello.
AntwortenLöschenI agree that this week theme was less abstract although theory is something abstract and I believe it’s actually quite hard to explain what theory is. My impression is that theory can mean a lot of different things depending on whom you ask, however a scientific theory is a framework for observations and facts. And a theory always starts with a hypothesis. As you wrote it could be quite hard to use some of the traditional academic disciplines in design research, because when you study media technology you want to explore more and create new rather then just explain phenomena. However I believe this type of research has become more common and accepted between reserachers.
Hey, very interesting read! When you talk about old theories being applied to new fields and researchers making it easy for themselves... I get the impression you are being critical of these researchers, which I can't completely agree with, because to climb higher up a ladder, one inevitably has to start from the lower steps, if you get what my point. Also, I think, it really depends on the purpose of a given research. Does it aim to explain a very new occurence and, thus, relies on old theories due to the lack of new theories? Or does it aim to explore this new occurance in order to propose a new theory? Or does it test a new theory (as in hipothesis) in relation to this unfamiliar occurance? Whichever the case, I completely agree that new theories and the old ones on which they are based are equally important.
AntwortenLöschenI like that you write about the paper you choose for this theme as well as your bachelor’s thesis. This is a way of connecting the questions of research and theory to a concrete concept. In your text you point out that this theme was less abstract compared to the two previous themes. I agree, but I also found the concept of theories getting more abstract as the theme progressed. I don’t think there is a limit to theories, as new knowledge emerge, new theories are needed as a framework to sort and facilitate the process of learning. In our group we also discussed the forming of new theories, and how people tend to await these theories to gain approval within the research community before they are used.
AntwortenLöschen