Date post: | 05-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | melvyn-king |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 3 times |
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
[email protected] 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.