The Structure of Theory and the Structure of Scientific Revolution:

What Constitutes an Advance in Theory?

Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D. (HOD class of 2006)

Institute for Social Innovation (ISI) FellowFoundation for the Advancement of Social

Theory

swallis@ProjectFAST.orgFielding Graduate University, Summer Session

July 14-18, 2009 - Kansas City, MO

From a chapter in “Cybernetics and Systems Theory in Management: Tools, Views and Advancements .” Steven E. Wallis (Ed.): IGI Global,

Publisher.

2

What is “theory” ?1. A set of interrelated propositions2. Similar to a schema, mental model, frame

of reference, or lens to see the world

(AND… the study of theory is properly called metatheory)

What is “metatheory” ?1. Investigation of the creation,

structure, validation and falsification of theories

(including the interrelatedness of propositions)

2. A theory that is created of other theories

3

Two Problems With Kuhn’s Idea

1. Fails to define “how much change” makes something revolutionary

2. Fails to specifically identify specifically, “what change” in theory enables a revolution

These problems open the door for spuriousclaims of revolutionary advances

in theory and practice

4

?

Spurious claims cause confusion and reduce legitimacy of scholars,

practitioners, and management programs… For example:

TQM claims to be a Kuhnian

revolution

TQM fails at least

75% of the time

5

How Do We Investigate This?

Kuhn’s revolutions were described in the physical sciences, while TQM relates to the social sciences.

Are the sciences relatable / comparable?

6

Bridging the Great DivideFrom a metatheoretical perspective, we

may analyze theories from the physical sciences, draw inferences, and transfer those insights to the social sciences so that we may gain insight and learn how to achieve true paradigm revolutions (with attendant benefits for humanity).

IF we can find some commonality between the two sciences…

7

We Can Compare the Physical and Social Sciences Because:

Theories of both sciences contain propositions. The interrelatedness of those propositions is quantifiable providing a reliable basis for comparison.“Propositional analysis” is used to objectively quantify the structure or “robustness” of the

theory

8

Robustness (R) is a measure of interrelatedness (or structure).

Metaphorically…

Low R = scattered bricks

Medium R = Pile of bricks

High R = Brick house

9

Structure of TheoryEach theory contains propositionsEach proposition contains aspects

(differentiable concept or phenomena)

Causal relationships between aspects may be:

Linear (A causes B causes C) Concatenated (A and B cause C)

(Concatenated aspects are privileged per Bateson’s double description, and their greater complexity)

“C” is the concatenated aspect here

10

Using Propositional Analysis

to Easily Find Robustness

Consider a theory of five aspects (A, B, C, D, & E) The theory contains two propositions: 1. A causes B2. More C and more D cause more E.

(of these, only one (E) is concatenated) Therefore, the robustness of this theory is 0.20 (the result of one concatenated aspect divided by five total aspects). Robustness is the RATIO of the well-explained (concatenated) to the poorly explained (linear) aspects of the theory

11

This AnalysisUses propositional analysis to quantify Robustness (on a scale from zero to one)

Finds changes to structure of electrostatic attraction theory over 1,500 Years

Asks: What is the relationship between the structure of theory and Kuhnian paradigm revolution?

12

Plutarch 100 CE

Magnet

Pushes Air

Pushes Iron

Exhalations

Rubbing

Pushes Small

Objects

Amber

Exhalations

Pushes Air

Robustness = 0.14 (scattered bricks) (one concatenated aspect divided by seven total aspects)

Note th

e

linearit

y

of the

causa

l

logic

No Revolution

13

Gilbert 1600 CE

Robustness of 0.21 (pile of bricks)(three concatenated aspects divided by 14 total aspects)

No Revolution

Better –

but

most

ly

linear

14

Coulomb 1785 CE

Robustness of 1.0 (brick house)(three concatenated aspects divided by three total aspects)

CHARGEFORCE

DISTANCE

Note th

e

co-

causa

lity

of the lo

gic

Revolution!

Kuhn says this theory is of the paradigmatic revolution. Thus, it may also be said that a robustness of 1.0 is a revolutionary version of theory.

15

Table Summarizing Theories

Year Total Number of Aspects

Number of Concatenated

AspectsRobustness Name of theorist or

theory

100 

7 1 0.14 Plutarch

1550 6 1 0.17 Cardan

160014 3 0.21 Gilbert

1750 

11 4 0.36 Two Fluid theory

1785 

3 3 1.0 Coulomb

Metaphorically: where do you want to live?

16

Advancing Robustness Toward Paradigm Revolution

Note the asymptotic advance as the theory becomes more robust – suggesting a “power curve” or “quantum increase” in the capacity

of the theory

Theories of Electrostatic Attraction

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Year

Ro

bu

stn

es

s

Revolution!

Applied

relia

bly

around th

e

world fo

r

centu

ries.

(7,0

00 +

rela

ted

patents

)

17

Just as an aside: Note the spike in complexity during the scientific revolution

Change in Aspects Over Time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

As

pe

cts

Total number of Aspects

Number of ConcatenatedAspects

Change in Aspects over Time

18

How Robust is Your Theory?Here’s how some social theories stand along this path toward

robustness.

Benchm

ar

k:

Management Theories Superimposed on Development of Electrostatic Attraction Theory

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Rob

ustn

ess

Institutional Theory R = 0.31

Peak Performance R = 0.17

Organizational Learning Theory R = 0.16

Gandhian Ethics R = 0.25

Integral Theory R = 0.10

Social Entrepreneurship Theory R = 0.13

Complex Adaptive Systems Theory R = 0.63

Complexity Theory R = 0.56

Closer to Revolution

Further from Revolution

19

A Few Research Ideas:

Study other theories from the physical sciences – do they follow the same curve toward revolution?

Study social theories – are the more effective theories more robust?

What difficulties and opportunities might arise as we learn to see the word through different (more robust) theories?

(for more ideas, read the chapter)

20

To Conclude….

Measuring the robustness of a theory appears to be a useful predictor of true paradigmatic revolution and an objective way to measure the advancement of theoryIf YOU make and use robust theory, than YOU might create a true paradigmatic revolution!The potential benefits to humanity are very large (just imagine a “social revolution” on the scale of the “computer revolution”).

By following the path to robustness, we may achieve true paradigm shift in years, not

centuries.