At the seminar we discussed theory in smaller groups and Leif also explained a bit more in-depth what theory is. It was easier to understand now than during the lecture.
However, I got a bit confused during the seminar whether the article I chose uses Theory of Prediction since the article talked a bit about earlier studies and their results - therefore the results in this study could look the same or have the similar behaviour. My colleagues in class had understood this as prediction. However, Leif explained to us that it is not prediction since it just a formulation of hypothesis from earlier researches. So fortunately I had a pretty correct understanding of what Theory of Prediction is.
It also seems like a lot of Gregor’s theories includes or builds upon each other even though it is not explicitly written. For example Theory of Explaining already assumes that the topic has been described earlier, that the readers know of the topic or the researches includes a short introduction to describe the topic (Theory of Analysing). So Theory of Explaining contains a part of Theory of Analysing.
Leif continued to explain that theory for example is “ the answer to queries of why”. We also discussed abstract definitions for example; when does many trees become a forest? No one had a “correct” answer to this. I believe that the definition for theory is a bit similar in being abstract. There is no correct answer and the definition is a bit arbitrary... Therefore the concept is a bit difficult to understand.
I think you have understood this theme very well!
SvaraRaderaI just wanted to add a little to what you are saying about that the theories builds upon each other. I see the table 2 (where the theories where graded from type I-V) as the longer down you get, the deeper the theory. Type II always contains a little of type I, and type III always contains of type II (and therefore also type I) and so on! Except maybe type V Design and Action where it only should show how to reach a specific goal.
We could see the types as different levels of theory complexity! :)
That was a very good explanation, I suppose I was kind of aiming at that "definition" :)
RaderaI agree qith what you say regarding that theory is something abstract. As we talked about during the seminar, theories are seldom pure, they are often hybrids and a combination of several catogories of theory. I believe that research question often contains a certain amount of complexity and therefor it takes different styles of theory to be able to answer these questions.
SvaraRaderaI agree with you that this weeks theme was very abstract. This made me quite confused actually and I think that I will try to look through the litterature for this theme when I will write my masters' thesis. Do you think that you will use this knowledge in your future writings to be able to produce "true" knowledge and theory?
SvaraRadera