Reflections on theme 3: Theory & Research

Theory, theory, theory… I have a lot of theories what theory really is. It is hard to grasp but at my seminar there was one defining theory as: “I would explain theory as a way to organize abstract thinking, making meaningful generalizations of a phenomena or the world.” I am quoting this because I truly think it’s very nice put. I mean it’s still fairly abstract, however it’s a little less abstract now.

During the seminar we evaluated if we’ve chosen the correct theory type. Someone at the seminar had posted this very nice picture of Gregor’s table. There were quite a few that had chosen the third type ‘Prediction’. I among them had understood Gregor as hypotheses can be included in this third type. However it can not. We discussed this for a long time at the seminar and it became fairly clear to me, though I’m kind of unsure how I ever can put a paper in the third section. I’m even more unsure when to put a paper in the fourth section ‘EP - Explanation and Prediction’. That is still, to me, a mystery. :)

Some part of me want to write that the higher number on theory type, the more valuable the article. However I won’t write it since I think it depends on the article and purposes with the article. I defined my paper, before the seminar, to be a hybrid between type one (‘analysis’) and type two (‘explanation’) and I still believe so. Before the seminar I thought the article was more of a type two but now I’m leaning towards it being more of a type one. Thus we discussed our articles in smaller groups during the seminar and when I was talking about my paper ‘out loud’ I realized that Chan is more saying ‘what it is’ than explaining ‘how, when, why and where’. Because he kind of does this too, I’ll still categorize it as a hybrid between the two types - perhaps type 1,5?

At the lecture the professor talked a lot about theories and how to define ‘theory’. I thought this was helpful and confusing at the same time. I had hoped that we would discuss this further on the seminar and especially the benefits and limitations with different theories. I ended up in a nice semi-seminar group in which we discussed this to some extent, so I am satisfied anyway. Haha.

Also, during the lecture, we looked at a picture of trees and snow. We were asked to describe what was shown. Trees, snow, how the wind had blown and loneliness came up. I was thinking ‘Christmas morning’ but I wasn’t sure how to argue for why I thought so. I think the purpose of the assignment was to look at the picture and look at it again. I took a course in photography in high school, that’s when I first got introduced to this. Before I could see a picture or a painting without really seeing it. Thus I was very boring to go to museums and art galleries with. However, during that course in photography I sort of learnt to take the time and look and look again. To me I manage to see more of the object by making up stories to it. Perhaps that’s why I was thinking of a Christmas morning when looking at the picture at lecture.

I don’t think anyone can see the whole picture, since it requires a posteriori knowledge (i.e. experience) to be able to interpret the picture/object/painting. The picture differ depending on who is watching. I think that is why some art/pics attract some people and not everybody. Haha, Kant is still bugging me with his “How can we say anything about the world a priori?”