Theme 3: Reflection

In this post I will be discussing my reflections on theme 3 based on the reading, seminars and group discussions that we had during the seminar. Read the previous blog post on this theme here.

For this theme, we read the texts of  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems by Gregor, S. (2006) as well as What Theory is Not by Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995).

Reflecting back on the first blog post, at first it felt indeed easier to state what theory is not. During my bachelors degree and before the lecture I had already gained much knowledge of the meaning and importance of theory as well as how to use it in an academical context, but I have certainly never been critical enough towards the concept itself. I've never misinterpret theory to the five guidelines which Sutton and Staw advice to avoid though. The first blog post managed to capture the basic idea of theory, so there is no need to repeat that on this one.

During the seminar, we discussed the institutional perspective of theory, which I hadn't reflected on earlier. I was focusing more on the question "what is theory" rather than "who can produce/present a theory", but the second question is also highly relevant and worth of giving a thought. In this context, with the concept of 'institution' I mean the academic ground on which the theory is built: the institution that allows the theory to be presented. Whether a theory is presented by a single researcher or a group of them, the theory is considered justified because of their academic background and a credible academic journal. So is anyone allowed to come up with theory and if so, who values the theory? The institution alias the reviewers of the journal? Does theory even have value if not reviewed?

This brings us to the probably most important feature of theory: it doesn't necessarily have to be true or right. Theory can not be valued based on its veracity because if it is well-argued, it's still a theory – even if proven wrong. Ilias mentioned that theory is right until replaced by another one, which is a valid statement. But from where I see it, even then it doesn't stop being a theory, it just wasn't right at the time. That is why we have so many great theories arguing against each other even today, and with the help of dialectics we can manage to see how there is room for all of them.

One could describe theory as a spine for all scientific research. When it comes to credibility of the research, theory has an essential role in that. Like I wrote above, proving the theory wrong doesn't make it any less a theory, but it does indeed have an enormous impact on the final outcome of the study. Scientific studies aim to provide knowledge, which at its most concrete results as changes in behavior. If a nutrition study claims that carbs are bad for you, we'll start avoiding them. If a neurological study proves that having a phone in the pocket near your body causes cancer, we would probably stop putting our phones there.

Sutton and Staw discuss the credibility issue as well and they argue for the importance of empirical evidence when testing a theory:"When theories are particularly interesting or important, there should be greater leeway in terms of empirical support. A small set of interviews, a demonstration experiment, a pilot survey, a bit of archival data may be all that is needed to show why a particular process might be true." As a final statement I would say that theory alone is not much, rather it's the empirical evidence that truly justifies its existence and gives the theory value. Only if we strictly review the term "theory" itself, it gets its legitimacy because of the features that are considered as qualities of a good theory.