After this weeks seminar the concept of theory become
more comprehensible. I think the theme was very interesting and rewarding, because of how a word so “obvious” can be so confusing. During the seminar we
discuss the term in different angles. First of all the theory can be seen from
different perspectives regarding the topic and the type of analysis that it
raises. A collection of hypotheses built together a theory that can be tested
in the way of a purpose. We also discussed the differences between an assertion
and a hypothesis. The assertion can be true or false, while the hypothesis has
to be tested. Prediction can also be true or false depending of whom it affects
or who will be tested, in time and space. For instance, the definition of
Social Media, which category does it belongs to? It’s different know compare
for 10 years ago. Doubts about what actually belongs to what, social media or mass
media?
At the seminar we also discuss two types of theory,
normative theories and descriptive theories. Normative theories are rules which
are implicitly or unwritten. For instance, you don’t pass the road when the red
man lightning or in Sweden you don’t go inside with you shoes on. While
Descriptive theories are more how we describe things, “The humans are deadly”
or “Is it okay to eat animals” etc.
I think the taxonomies of theory types were bit tricky
to categorize my paper as, we discussed this at the seminar and it was be
different depending on how you look at them in relation to the paper. But
still, I want to hold on to my decision and use the prediction, grounded by the
hypotheses that been tested and the limitation of the generality and
reliability of the result regarding the few participators.
The study in my paper was based on two theories,
multiple recourse theory and threaded cognition. These theories shaped five hypotheses
and they tested them in different ways. The number of participators was 84, they
should look at a news piece on 14 min and answer on different question, and at
the same time Google the answers. Before the seminar I criticized the small
amount of participators, but now I will see the result as good, just because
the qualitative result they got out of it. In this kind of research its good to
investigate the qualitative of each participators to collect the most important
aspects.
I think your explanation make me much more clear about what is normative normative theories and descriptive theories. It seems like normative theories like the hypothesis of what is right and wrong. But descriptive theories tell us the ways things are, but not what we ought to do.
SvaraRaderaI think your interpretation of my explanation is correct, the hypotheses can be both right and wrong and sometimes at the same time. The normative examples I gave are not written in stone, and of course it’s not illegal to pass the red man but other peoples may think not do right. In the descriptive way it can bee seen as you say, how the things are – in the way of describing things.
RaderaI don't think we talked that much about normative vs. descriptive theories during my seminar. As I remember it was only briefly mentioned, and I didn’t understand what the meaning of the terms was. Because of this it was interesting to read about it in your blog and to get some concrete examples of it, thank you!
SvaraRaderaHi Kristina,
SvaraRaderaI really like your thoughts. Especially when you write about that a prediction for instance can be tested, in time and space and therefor not are true or false. I never thought about theories or hypotheses like changing depending on our time and culture and things in our society. Good reflection!