Today we discussed more about theory and research. The task given was to discuss the different theories in our selected papers and further discuss the subject of theory. The traditional way of constructing a research paper like the one we have read was discussed and in general the theory part is somewhere in the middle, after the introduction but before the solution and/or conclusion. I found it quite hard to directly assess what type of theory mine would be described as but after looking into the theory part more (and Googling the Grice’s maxims) we decided that it was mostly about communication. The other theories in the group were about social capital, perceived tele/social-presence. We came to the conclusion to further discuss my paper which were about the theory of communication and more specific the Grice's maxims. The paper didn't explain it to much, just a couple of sentences, so it was nice to discuss it more and get a better understanding as to what it is and how it's applicable to communication both online and offline.
After the discussion in the group we spoke more about the types of theories explained in Gregor’s text and discussed whether my text would be explanatory or both explanatory and predictable. My first thought, just as I wrote in my earlier blogpost, was that the text was plainly explanatory, since it didn’t clearly state any prediction about the Grice’s maxims and the future. I thought that the text should give a clear prediction but after some discussion we said that the paper could be somewhere in between. That’s because the text, even though it doesn’t clearly state it, says something about communication online and what makes it successful. You could, in some way, generalize and say that the text explains what makes communication online successful. We finished this part of the seminar by adding the “Theory of Gricean maxims” to the wiki-page of the course website.
We further discussed the difference between theories in different fields and the difference between hypothesis contra theory. In the natural science it usually sufficient to refute the theory in one way to kill it and make it unusable, but in the social sciences it’s more a floating kind of relation. A theory can live for a certain time frame, be refuted, continue to be valid and not die off until later. We heard a good example about social media and that young people use it more than older people. This theory can change over time if the younger generation continue to use it, or still be valid if we stop using it when we get older.
I think the theories of the social sciences field actually provide a platform for discussion. In fact, this is all speculative conclusions that are quite difficult to refute. I think that media theory in fact turns into a big conference and exchange of opinions.
SvaraRaderaI think it's pretty harsh to simplify a whole field to "speculative conclusions", although I think I know what you're trying to say. In the case we saw earlier in the course with the table (is it there or not?) or the other classic example of the tree in the woods (if nobody is there to hear it fall, does it still make a sound?). In these cases I agree that it's pretty difficult to refute them (even though I personally think discussions like these are just a waist of time).
RaderaIn other cases, on the other hand, like the one with social media use I gave above, it's pretty easy to make calculations and determine whether or not the theory is still viable.
The distinction I tried to make between social sciences and natural sciences is the fact that the theories in the social sciences are up for debate on a whole other level than the ones in the natural sciences (e.g. theory of social media usage vs. theory of gravity).
Hi Stefan!
SvaraRaderaI also found it difficult to explain what kind of theory was used in my paper . I have to admit that I find it a little bit annoying that the boundaries are not so clear.
I think that it is good that you mentioned the difference between social and natural sciences and that in social sciences the theories are more vague, that they can be revised.