After attending the seminar this week I realize that my assumption regarding the type of theory was not exactly correct. Lecturer Leif Dahlberg explained the different types during the seminar which was helpful for trying to define the theory in a certain text. I looked back on the text I read about Khan Academy and now I would say that the theory of the text consists of a combination of the five types defined by Gregor. During the seminar this concept was something that came into discussion and Dahlberg argued that theories seldom are pure but rather a combination of several types. Worth mentioning, though, is that the five theories presented by Gregor aims to be extentions of each other; type II, explanation, is for example a continuation of type I, analysis, as analysis is one part of explanation as a whole.
This theme was a little more difficult than the previous two, but to me it had more relevant content and I feel like the things I have learned will be useful in future courses. One thing that stuck to me was the argument that studies are controlled by their theories and that the more developed a theory is, the easier it becomes to do a valuable study. This is very interesting and from experience I would have to agree with the statement. My best reports have been the ones where I have put much time and thought into the early stages, such as theory, of the process. I would say that theory can be seen as the foundation and prep work of a study, and if you don't have a proper foundation you cannot get a steady house.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaI agree that the taxonomy of theory types proposed by Gregor is connected to each order. For the example, in your reflection, you said that type 2 is based on type 1 with addition information about the explanation of the object. However, I think for type 5 is slightly different, because I think in this type they focus on concrete form about how design something.
I think theory can be a foundation to form a hypothesis, and based on this theory you can make an examination to challenge your hypothesis. But, a theory sometimes can be challenge by another theories. Because with advance of technology, human can get more new knowledge that can be used to renew or change the theory.
Oh, that is interesting, I never really reflected over the fifth type being more separated from the other ones but you certainly have a good point.
RaderaYes and technology is, as you say, useful to help science move forward in a faster pace and perhaps in a more accurate direction. I think that a lot thanks to technology and the possibilities to find related research with web tools, theories are being melted into each other. Sometimes they clash but sometimes they partly go together.
I really like your comparison between theory and the foundation of a house! I really did not see it in that way when I wrote my bachelor thesis, I rather saw it as something I had to do, but did not want to do. I think this theme was really good as a preparation for our master exam thesis, but like you I also found this theme hard to fully understand (I don’t feel like I do it now either, but at least I understand the necessity about it).
SvaraRaderaYeah, maybe we would need to visit this theme once or twice again in order to grasp theory a little bit better! However I think that I know more about the "basis" of theory" now and I will hopefully be able to do proper research and find relevant theories when it is time for the master thesis. :)
RaderaLike Sofie, I also liked the allegory of the foundation of the house. I think that the five types of theory are closely interrelated, and after the seminar I felt in some way more confused about which type belongs to which category. They all seem to depend on each other. I also have experience with theory and theses. I agree because in my case the theories were not well grounded and this, among other things, lead to a thesis work that, in hindsight, could have been better performed.
SvaraRaderaIt's fascinating to hear that your paper didn't reach its max potential because of poor theory. That is something that is very useful to hear about in order to understand the essence of theory. It got me thinking that maybe this course should have a theme of "what not to do" with bad examples of how the different sections of a paper have been executed. Because I think that a lot of papers have flaws and if we never discuss these, how are we supposed to know that they are flaws?
RaderaThat is a very good suggestion! We had some do's and don't on the Bälter-seminar, but that was about it. I think the key point is to find theory that is truly related and relevant to your problem definition. It also helps if these theories can be applied in a research study way, in order to show on behavioral patterns.
RaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaReally liked your reflection around research and the "Steady house". I guess that it is really important that you let the used theories "go to work" with the research data, not only building a steady house but also building a beautiful house. Both spending more time in the beginning and using the theories throughout research is something that I can relate to when thinking about my candidate thesis, it could have been so much better!