During this theme we discussed a lot about "theory". In the lecture,under the instruction of professor, we spent time on how to define "human". That was an interesting topic. At first I thought human is a kind of annimal who can stand on their two feet and create many useful tools. During the discussion in our group we supplemented it that human is a kind of high intelligence creaticve creature who can stand on their two feet and who can also write, read, spkeak, etc. While in the class dicussion, we made a deeper insight on it, which human both have huaman's body and human inside spirit. That is to say, human have spiritual pursuit and complex emotions, such as lying, hiding feelings, culture etc. Inspired by classmates, I also put forward the opinion that human is a kind of creature who can know they(and their race) are mortal, which the professor also explained "living towards death".
As for "theory", there are different ways to understand it. Theory is from Greek word which means viewing or looking. Originally, it means that we should use our eyes and our senses to observe the outside objects, to know and to get knowledge. That is to say, in ancient times, knowledge is very related to "theory". Maybe "knowing is about seeing" to some extent. In modern science, theory usually refer to scientific theories, which is different form that in ancient times. As we learned from this lecture, theory is "a set of propositions" and used to explain phenomena. Normally, a theory can be overthrown and relpaced by a new theory as long as it is proven in applicable in its field. While in the two articles "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems[1]" and "What Theory is Not[2]", the authors classified "theory" and try to make it better recognized for us. But sometimes it can also lead to to much confusion when we decide to classify one essay and try to find which kind of theory it used. For example the author of "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems" classified theory into five different types: analysis, expalnation, prediction, explanation and design and sction. But it is hard to figure out which type the author used in "Noise in an intensive care unit[3]" because it contained a few solutions in it while it did not contain any prediction. Also, in the seminar our group discussed a lot on whether the type of analysis is the basement type for all papers because if you lose the analysis, it's hard to draw any conclusion, let alone prediction. While on the other hand, in the paper of art and architect, analyzing may not be the necessary one, becsuase in some kind of papers, their "analysing" may be used in a totally different way. May be we can draw the conclusion that analysis is the basement of paper, but not necessary.
What is the difference between "theory" and "research"? In my perspective,research is very related to practice,which means we should do by ourself and investigate on the experiment objects. On the contrary, theory is related to perceiving, which means we should think by ourself and explain the phenomena.
As for "theory", there are different ways to understand it. Theory is from Greek word which means viewing or looking. Originally, it means that we should use our eyes and our senses to observe the outside objects, to know and to get knowledge. That is to say, in ancient times, knowledge is very related to "theory". Maybe "knowing is about seeing" to some extent. In modern science, theory usually refer to scientific theories, which is different form that in ancient times. As we learned from this lecture, theory is "a set of propositions" and used to explain phenomena. Normally, a theory can be overthrown and relpaced by a new theory as long as it is proven in applicable in its field. While in the two articles "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems[1]" and "What Theory is Not[2]", the authors classified "theory" and try to make it better recognized for us. But sometimes it can also lead to to much confusion when we decide to classify one essay and try to find which kind of theory it used. For example the author of "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems" classified theory into five different types: analysis, expalnation, prediction, explanation and design and sction. But it is hard to figure out which type the author used in "Noise in an intensive care unit[3]" because it contained a few solutions in it while it did not contain any prediction. Also, in the seminar our group discussed a lot on whether the type of analysis is the basement type for all papers because if you lose the analysis, it's hard to draw any conclusion, let alone prediction. While on the other hand, in the paper of art and architect, analyzing may not be the necessary one, becsuase in some kind of papers, their "analysing" may be used in a totally different way. May be we can draw the conclusion that analysis is the basement of paper, but not necessary.
What is the difference between "theory" and "research"? In my perspective,research is very related to practice,which means we should do by ourself and investigate on the experiment objects. On the contrary, theory is related to perceiving, which means we should think by ourself and explain the phenomena.
(u1ucvszr)
References
[1]Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
[3]Sutton, R.I.&Staw,B.M.(1995).What Theory is Not.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
[2]Salandin,A.,Arnold,J.& Kornadt,O., 2011. Noise in an intensive care unit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), pp.3754–60.
References
[1]Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
[3]Sutton, R.I.&Staw,B.M.(1995).What Theory is Not.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
[2]Salandin,A.,Arnold,J.& Kornadt,O., 2011. Noise in an intensive care unit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), pp.3754–60.
I like that you covered a lot in this reflection. I especially though about what you wrote about the "base type" for all papers. While I think this might be true for a lot of scientific papers, I don't think it might be for all. It should really depend on what the aim of the paper actually is. Say for instance, the goal of the study is to give a description of already existing systems for storing grades in schools. This would do fine with explaining only, and the analyzing part could derive form having an actual problem or question that need answering. I might have gotten it the wrong way, but still an interesting read!
ReplyDeleteKeep it up!
Thank you for your accurate and logical thought, which helps me understand it better.LOL
DeleteHi,
ReplyDeletethank you for you wonderful post, i found that you posts are always in details and can include almost all things which introduced in the lecture. I like read you post, cause i can find and fetch up things which i missed from the course and get new opinions in your group discussion. I also think that analysis is very important in a research paper cause we might find new things according to the data results but it is not necessary or you said a basement type for all papers. However, i have no doubt for your left opinions. Good job and keep on:)