“What is a theory in research?”
…my professor asked me in my last oral exam at the university.
Pah! What an outrageous question.
I had apparently answered the questions related to the course material so well that he now wanted to test me.
The annoying thing was, I couldn’t really answer the question well. When are you ever asked that question?
This article will help make sure that you don’t experience the same thing that happened to me.
From now on, you will always have an answer for the question “what is a theory” plus some knowledge about the philosophy of science at your fingertips.
What is a theory in research?
Defining the term “theory” is not so easy. But one thing is clear: anyone who wants to deal with theory from a philosophy of science perspective cannot ignore one man: Karl Popper.
Popper defined theory as “universal statements” used to cast a net to “catch” the world. (Popper, 1959).
So a theory should aim to contribute general statements (universal statements) about phenomena (the world) in order to better explain or understand the world. Specific statements that are only true in a particular situation are therefore not suitable as theory.
A theory often only considers a specific section of reality. This section can then be represented as a so-called model.
The Demarcation Problem
Why was Popper’s work so important? Until Popper’s book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” was published, it was not really defined when a methodology was considered “scientific” and when it was not.
This is also called the “demarcation problem”, i.e. the dividing line between science and non-science.
At that time, Popper criticized in particular the backward-looking character of many studies. For example, Popper’s contemporary Sigmund Freud looked back in time to explain the present. What Popper disliked was the fact that Freud could always search for evidence that confirmed his theory instead of looking for evidence that refuted it.
Falsification
Albert Einstein, on the other hand, tried to make predictions about the future using theory, which Popper preferred.
However, theory according to Einstein’s approach is much more fragile, as only one event in the future is enough to bring down the entire theory.
But Popper was convinced. He believed that theory must be falsifiable.
The old view was this: if I find a handful of white swans, I can propose the theory that all swans are white.
Popper’s view, however, was this: if I find a single black swan, I can refute the it.
Instead of looking for evidence, we should look for counter-evidence!
The main components of a theory in research
The development of a theory most often involves the observation of real-world phenomena. At least when we conduct science based on the idea of empiricism, which presupposes that knowledge is generated through human experience.
Through a step of interpretation and abstraction, we can convert the phenomena into concepts. On a practical level, we can do this in the qualitative analysis of interview data, to name just one example.
At this level, we can also make assumptions about how these concepts are causally related to each other. This is a very important component of any theory: what is the relationship between the individual components?
Once concepts and their relationships are established, we can in principle speak of a theory.
Now it is a matter of repeatedly testing, expanding, or falsifying it.
To do this, concepts are transformed into constructs that consist of individual variables. This step is important so that it is even determined what can be observed in a study and then ultimately measured. Measurability is achieved by operationalizing variables.
The theoretical relationship between the variables is expressed in hypotheses that can be tested through statistical calculations. Here we are in the realm of quantitative research. For example, an experiment could be carried out to draw conclusions about the relationship between two or more variables.
What is a theory in research? (4 questions)
To order the components of a theory a bit, you can ask questions as Whetten (1989) did:
What?
Which factors, be they concepts, constructs or variables, should be considered at all? Here the principle of parsimony or Ockham’s razor applies, namely: the theory that requires the fewest components to explain the phenomenon is usually the best.
How?
How are the factors connected to each other? You can easily imagine this with the boxes and arrows that are usually used as a graphic element to illustrate a theory in 2D.
Why?
What are the dynamics that the theory tries to model? What are the causal relationships that the theory assumes?
Who, Where, When?
What are the limitations of the theory, and who or what can it not represent if necessary?
Critique of the prevailing understanding of theory
However, this understanding of “what is a theory?” is not the only one.
Although Karl Popper did not consider himself a positivist, the image of theory explained above corresponds to positivist assumptions.
This would mean that we humans can perceive the world as it is with our senses and can therefore make statements about the objective world.
In the natural sciences, these assumptions are not questioned so much because, to put it bluntly, the probability that we live in a matrix and that the laws of nature do not reflect the objective world is rather low.
If scientists were to question the assumption that there is some sort of objective world outside of our minds it would be very hard to conduct research at all.
But in the social sciences, this epistemological standpoint has often been criticized. The reason for this is that the research object here is different, for example human behavior. Over time, sociology, psychology, and now even communication and media studies have increasingly been overlaid with natural scientific principles.
An example of the resulting conflict was the so-called positivism dispute, in which the German Frankfurt School, led by Theodor Adorno, took a counterposition with their “Critical Theory”.
According to critical theory, the subjective character of knowledge acquisition must be taken into account when developing theory.
Why do we need theory in research?
Alright, we’ve clarified the question “What is a theory?” (hopefully).
To wrap things up, here are a few thoughts on why they are important. After all, couldn’t we simply observe the world and write down our findings without abstracting them into theories?
Well, we might miss out on a lot of potential if we were to discard theory.
#1 Theories help us better understand the world
I always think of theories as glasses. I can put on different glasses and see the world differently. Through one pair of glasses, I see certain aspects of the world more clearly, and through another pair, I get a completely new perspective.
#2 Theories collect our knowledge
Here, you can imagine theories like a Wikipedia article. Someone writes the first draft, which is then checked, developed further, or even criticized by others. The important thing is always that every scientific work somehow tries to make a contribution, sometimes smaller, sometimes larger.
#3 Theories help in practice
Through theories, we can uncover problems and derive actions to change the world for the better.
And that is a wonderful idea, isn’t it?