The theme of this week was a bit more difficult to grasp than the previous ones, usually it is easier to deal with practical issues -which are the complete opposite of theory- and also the lack of a "theory of theory" makes the approach to this subject dependent on the document we are taking in account.
After the seminar I must say that I am fairly skeptical about the categories to describe different type of theory found in "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems" by S. Gregor or at least about their static and narrow scope.
During the discussion we noticed that in some cases it was difficult to draw boundaries between two different types depending on the point of view we analyze a paper from.
For instance a paper treating "trends of..." it is supposed to highlights how a certain phenomenon would develop giving insights for predictions, but this was not the case for some of the papers treated which mostly attempted to analyze or explain a subject without any suggestion for further developments.
Furthermore these categories and approaches better apply to a certain type of sciences than others, for example there are many different features between natural, formal and social sciences that made me notice a fallacious nature in this dissertation which seems to propose strict diagrams and schemes.
Sometimes drawing a theory is not enough to turn it in accepted belief, but it takes time and many assessments from the research environment to assume it as a convention, which in many cases, in particular for constantly changeling phenomena, could make it obsolete once it has been accepted and moreover a theory is nearly useless as long as nobody knows or uses it.
Theories are essential to gain the knowledge we have thus my concern is about how to turn the theory in act, often we theoretically know a subject in deep but we are hardly able to put it in practice.
For instance this is one of the biggest differences between the anglo-germanic and the latin european areas in academic approaches: none of them is overcoming the other, but I noticed the difference between the studies I attended in Italy and the way education is carried out here in Sweden.
I always noticed that in latin countries we are taught on several subjects going really in deep in explanation and understanding but then we are missing a substantial part in education to turn the "know" into the "know how", which is more prominent here instead.
Hi Matteo! I am from Russia and it was very interesting for me to read about the differences between the studies in Italy and in Sweden. In Russia we deal with theory a lot and work with different types of theories and research. But I think that it depend not only on region, but also on field of study. I have background in journalism and theories in this field are theories for analysis of for explanation. But here, in KTH, the most of students have background in technic and they write more practical thesises.
ReplyDeleteAs you said the dependance on the field of study is very true, thus sometimes I found the theoretical modules excessive compared to real work experiences in many courses.
ReplyDeleteFor instance I graduated from Computer Science and we had a very few hours of programming labs against hours and hours about "Theory of Calculators" which I find extremely interesting and necessary, thus knowing about the "Von Neumann architecture" -the first computer concept drew in the 1940's- finds very little application and usefulness in real life;
Paradoxically it would be more useful know how to program and design stupid flash games to make people waste their time...
I liked how you critically reflected on the different types of theories proposed by Gregor. I was also thinking that it is not always easy and clear to define the type of theory is used in a paper.
ReplyDeleteI share your concern of turning theoritical knowledge into practice. Being Greek and having studied Journalism and Mass Media, I am used in theoritical studies.
Here in KTH emphasis is put on the practical part of knowledge, but I wouldn't generalize that. Do not take for granted that education here in Sweden is mainly practical. Studies in KTH are different from studies in SU.
PS: Keep in mind that the word theory has its origins in ancient Greek (θεωρία). The verb theoro (θεωρώ) could be defined as "to observe", "to explain", "to believe". Praxis (πρᾶξις) is considered to be the opposite meaning. The latter could be defined as doing, acting.
Generalizing is always dangerous, I was just underlining some trends I know existing in "our" countries compared with countries like Sweden.
ReplyDeleteAs student involved in the media sector I think it would be suitable to have the perfect balance between the "know-how", namely the practical knowledge on how to accomplish something, the “know-what” that is know facts, the “know-why” hence the casualties expressed by science and finally the “know-who” that is communication.
There is an interesting discussion going on here which I want to take part in. I might have made the same experience than you Teo. When studying media economics in Germany we also went sometimes very deep into details and covered theories which are not applicable today anymore. The question arises why do we even have to deal with it? I believe that it is very important to see how and why people thought in the past or were trying to find an answer to a particular question. This gives us a starting point to critically reflect and makes us aware of the fact that a true belief can become outdated when the setting changes. When there would be a transfer of just "practical knowledge", which you defined as "know-how", than we would perfectly fit into the system we have right now, turning into slaves of mass consumption, serving products to the masses, which they actually don't necessarily need. Hearing out a bit of irony in your first comment, you might agree on that?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was definitely ironic, I mean you can know everything about a car, engine, wheels, brakes and such, but then it is useless if you can not drive it!
DeleteI agree with you Simon in that it is important to see how and why people thought in the past because it enables to understand that beliefs can change and become outdated. Having a deeper understanding of what was considered before and why it changed, makes us critically think and decide how to better use the practical knowledge. The way I see it both types of knowledge-theoretical and practical-are important and it is their combination that will lead to the advancement of knowledge and sciences.
ReplyDelete