The literature we had to read for these theme differed from the previous texts. I felt that these texts were much easier to understand because they were more based on facts than philosophical thoughts and reasoning. This gave me much more time on actually thinking about what I had read and the questions I had to answers.
The lecture with Leif D. started out good, with a clear definition of theory.
“A theory is a set of propositions that aims to identify (abstract) objects and their relation to each other.” -Leif Dahlberg
Especially this sentence confirmed my understanding of what theory is. I also felt that my understanding prior the lecture was confirmed during the lecture. One thing I didn’t really understand was the point of the question “What is man?”. We all gave a lot of answers to the question, such as culture, body, consciousness, feelings, and so on that we put up on the whiteboard. But I did not understand the purpose or felt that it was explained by the lecturer with a conclusion. Maybe it was just a way of making us give a set of propositions?
During the seminar my group discussed our chosen papers as a starter. It seemed that no one had difficulties understanding the task and questions. Most of us also felt that it was easier describing theory by what it is not rather than what it is. We agreed on everything and I felt that it was because of the texts being pretty straightforward that there were not that much room for open interpretations from these texts. One thing my group brought up, that I found to be interesting, was that the authors contradicted each other on one statement. In the text “What theory is not”, Sutton and Staw states:
“Diagrams or figures can be a valuable part of a research paper but also, by themselves, rarely constitute theory”
Meanwhile Gregor points out one of the categories of theory being Analysis. He explains it as a category analyzing what is. This theory analyzes data and diagrams which contradicts Sutton and Staws statement.
Another debate during the seminar was what hypothesis is and how it differs from a theory. I felt that this discussion gave me a better explanation on what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis must be something you can reason around and argue about, if you can not do that then it is not a hypothesis. And a theory is built on a hypothesis that can be tested.
This theme was fun to read about, especially since I could relate to the keywords after having done my bachelor thesis. The assignment, lecture and seminar were mostly straightforward in my opinion.
You have done a really good job explaining this week's theme and its key words/concepts. To add to your reflection about theory and hypothesis, during the seminar we also discussed how a hypothesis is a single statement and how theory is used as a framework for understanding and conducting research. It shows that you have put a lot of effort into this week's theme. Good job!
SvaraRaderaHi Isabella,
SvaraRaderaYou reflected theme 3 in a really structured way, which makes your post blog easy to read. I think your assumption is correct that the teacher wanted to provide us with a feeling, what a set of propositions actually is. In my opinion the authors contradict in one statement as a theory and the definition of theory can be valid for one subject, but is far away from being universally valid.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaI think that your reflection is well structured and you also present your thoughts well. Interesting discussion on the contradiction between the two authors. At first I interpreted Suttan and Staw to mean that one has to explain or motivate why the diagrams or figures are relevant for the theory and not only present them, which would mean that their statement not necessarily contradicts Gregor’s statement.
During my seminar we discussed the reason behind the question “What is man?” and we also asked Ilias. His thought was that it was a way of giving us the experience of how a theory is formed, in this case a theory about what man is.
I do agree about the fact that explaining theory around what it is not was way easier, at least in the beginning - gradually I felt that the concept came around and became clear. Ending the post with some final thoughts is great! Keep it up!
SvaraRaderaHi~
SvaraRaderaThank you for sharing your thoughts. Your reflection did a great job explaining theme 3. I have the same confusion as you about the question "what is man". It is abstract for us to understand. Theory covers a large range so that I agree with you that it was easier describing theory by what it is not rather than what it is. Nice job!
Hi,
SvaraRaderaGood reflection of theme3, i am enjoy to read you paper, clearly and easily to read. I also agree most of you opinions. For what is the man and why teacher should talked about this, in my opinion, it is just playing a connecting role in this theme. Casue we are human, we do not really make a deep understanding the world, the truth for everything, so we could not know what is the theory really is. If we connect to the know we learnt before, it could not difficult to infer that everything is start from perceiving. Find a theory is hard, find a good or right theory is harder and harder. What theory is, sometimes is not easy to define it even not to mention that sometimes we are filtering something when we make a research related to theory. Whatever, nice work!
Hello Isabella,
SvaraRaderaI think you have done a good reflection about the theme, I agree that their was not as many questions during the group discussions and as you say i can be since the texts was more straight forward. But still your group manage to find the contradiction regarding what theory is and what it is not.
you also reflected on how theory differs from hypotheses which I think is important to understand. So good job!
Hello Isabella,
SvaraRaderaI think you have done a good reflection about the theme, I agree that their was not as many questions during the group discussions and as you say i can be since the texts was more straight forward. But still your group manage to find the contradiction regarding what theory is and what it is not.
you also reflected on how theory differs from hypotheses which I think is important to understand. So good job!
I also have the feeling that you have a good understanding of this week's topic. I think you got an interesting point when you were discussing whether the papers about theory contradicts each other. In my opinion they are not having opposite opinions about theory. Of course, Sutton and Staw are right in saying that diagrams and figures do not make a theory. But I guess Gregor is not negating this. I'd rather say that he is talking about the analysis of figures, about trying to find a meaning in the data which has been collected. And it is legitimate to call this a theory. Because there is a difference in just providing data and making a hypothesis based on this data and proving it.
SvaraRaderaThis was a good summary of the theme, I think. I agree with much of your experiences. The theme was more concrete and easier to understand. Bringing up Leif's quote clearly in the post was a good move I think. I has missed the quote myself and mostly remember the "What is man" discussion, so it was good getting a reminder of one of the more clear points of the lecture.
SvaraRaderaGreat reflection! I like how you describe in great detail how your thoughts have shaped during this weeks theme. I remember the discussion of the different views on theory by the authors from the seminar. After I have done some more reflection upon it I think the authors don´t completely contradict each other even though they seem to have different views on theory. The differences in their opinions do overlap however leading to different conclusions. I think this was very interesting from the seminar.
SvaraRaderaHi Isabella, it is an enjoyable experience for reading your reflections. It's very clear and easy to understand as well as follow your idea. Thanks for saying about your thinking about the question 'what is man?'. I have exactly the same curiosity about it. I guess it might be a practice for us to experience how to think or formulate a theory? It is just my guess, but yes, I agree with you a lot on your reflections. Good job!
SvaraRaderaInteresting reflection! I don't know that I agree Gregor contradicts Sutton & Law's statement, though; I think they say diagrams and figures seldom constitute a theory, meaning they, by themselves, are not a theory. What Gregor argues, and I agree, is that theory can be based on diagrams and theory, but it needs to use that data as a base to form a type of academic reasoning, rather than just take it in bare.
SvaraRadera