The main focus during
this week was “theory”, and on this topic we studied “The Nature of
Theory in Information Systems” by Gregor (2006) as well as the
paper with the unusual title “What Theory is Not” by Sutton
& Staw (1995). During the two seminars this week we have reflected on the definition
and use of “theory”, both in scientific ways and in daily use.
The
concept of theory (in short being a proposition that is scientifically verified
by empirical tests) might come across as not that complicated to understand,
especially when compared to lots of other principles we need to digest as
students of KTH. What makes it confusing, in my opinion, is the rather contradictory
way we use the word theory in our daily life. When we say “I have a theory
about this”, we imply that the idea we have is not backed up by any evidence
about the underlying facts. Our daily use of “theory” more resembles the definition
of a hypothesis, and it drains the “market value” of the scientific term theory.
In
marketing I would compare this theory-confusion with brand names that have become
everyday nouns, like “Thermos”, “Band-aid” or “Frisbee”. At a first glance it
might seem like great PR for the product, but in fact it generally becomes a real
trouble for the company who tries to advertise the original trademark as it is
worn out by everyday use and confused with other products of lower quality,
which all reflect back on the authentic and typically high quality product.
Another
thing I have realized this week is the importance of defining and limiting your
research properly. In early research this might make us readers frustrated as
it seems too simple, and they seem not to be able learn a lot by their
experiments. One very interesting example we discussed during our seminar was an
early study of vision-replacement by sound. A study was able to prove that
blind test persons could match two socks with the same color, when they
listened to a noise which varied with color.
It
was interesting to both read and talk about the large variety of research
papers which have been studied this week. The variety of information and scientific
research which actually is available online continues to amaze me. Maybe Adorno
and Horkheimer were right, and we should worry about how much time people choose
to spend looking at pictures of cute kittens, rather than “enlightenment”.
References:
Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). “What Theory is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly,
40(3), 371-384.
English Teacher Melaine, “Vocabulary – Xerox, Kleenex, and Roller
Blades: When Brand Names Become Regular Nouns!”, Published on March 14, 2012, last updated (no date). Available here: http://www.englishteachermelanie.com/vocabulary-xerox-kleenex-and-roller-blades-when-brand-names-become-regular-nouns/
Well done Jenny, I found your post very exhaustive, in particular your similitude on the current use of the word "theory" and the marketing issue on brand names shed light on the difference the term "theory" has in the bibliography we read and the common use in spoken language.
SvaraRaderaHeya! I was just thinking of other examples about your branding problems you mentioned and one personal one that always drives my family crazy is the term "hoover". I lazily use that word all the time "oh, I'll just do some hoovering" but my father always tells me there's no such thing as hoovering because it is just the brand name Hoover. It is actually "I shall do the vacuuming!". But this problem seems to be a general one in Britain at least - I know I'm not the only one!!
SvaraRadera