måndag 26 september 2016

Theme 3: Second blog post

Theme 3, was all about what theory is and is not. At first (in my first blog post) I reflected more about what theory is not, rather than what theory is. After the lecture and seminar I changed my mindset. To understand what theory is not helped me to grasp what theory is, however its more important and useful to understand what theory is. A theoretical framework is the structure that can support or hold a theory (that starts as a hypothesis) of a research study. Without the theoretical framework you cannot describe the theory that explains why the research exist. For example if I aim to study a company, its not enough to have knowledge about methodology we also need knowledge in that specific field, we need theories for explanations.  The theoretical framework connects the research to existing knowledge. Theoretical framework is also the basis for formulating hypothesis and decision of research method. 

Before theme 3, I was thinking opposite; I was focusing on the details however theory looking at the pictures. Theory is not details it’s an abstract entity that aim to identify abstract objects and their relation to each other.  As our teacher told us it’s important to not just reproduce what we already know. Without knowledge production we will not develop methods or reach new theories. Interaction of different researches will give new feedback to science. New findings and knowledge will also help other researcher and institutes to develop research and theories. Theory does not belong to any individual it’s a collective interpretation of experiences and observations. Knowledge production was a new concept for me.  This week’s theme helped me to understand how to analyze scientific theories, which I believe is important for our future studies and thesis. It’s also important to problematize and question science and scientific methods. All knowledge that we obtain is NOT science. 

While we where discussing in my group at the seminar I also understood my selected research paper better. The paper obtain theory for explaining and predicting, they predict in the paper how studios can predict sales momentum for a new movie, for example they predict that star power, VFX and number of openings screen can increase revenues. They predict relationships between the different variables, but they also explain/describe why. With star power and VFX, studios send signals that it’s an expensive movie which usually attract audiences. The lecture and seminar about theory made it clear how complex theory is. 

7 kommentarer:

  1. Hi! I do agree with you and I also think that for a clear understanding of what theory is we need to analyze both: what theory is and what theory is not. Furthermore, while reading my mind caught this sentence "Theory does not belong to any individual it’s a collective interpretation of experiences and observations". It is something I haven't thought before! Most of research papers contains huge part of relevant theory or empirical data from previous scientists and researchers, so even if one is developing one idea, it's still not entirely his idea as it is based on such an important background. Moreover, knowledge production was a new term for me as well. I think that a strong theory should contain a great deal of knowledge production. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

    SvaraRadera
  2. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    SvaraRadera
  3. Interesting post!

    When you write that "theory does not belong to any individual it's a collective interpretation of experiences and observations" I disagree with you slightly. In my interpretation of theory, the role of the researcher (i.e., an individual) is central. Even if the work he or she reasons around, and later forms the theory from, is by others, it is still not the collective's interpretation that constitutes the theory. Of course, the fault may be in my interpretation of the concept, but it is still interesting to note that we conceived the notion of where theory "belongs" / comes from differently. Or perhaps it is just a selfish dream of someday being the owner of a theory, just like Newton or Hawkings ;)

    SvaraRadera
  4. The term "Producing knowledge" is both new and interesting to me. I haven't really thought about how knowledge originates before, but I think I would have believed that knowledge is something that is always out there and that one just has to seize it. Now though, I realize that it is more complicated than that. For instance, could it even be defined as knowledge vefore it is known? If not, the process of producing knowledge makes more sense. It all just depends on how you see and perceive things.

    SvaraRadera
  5. I also found the notion of the difference between knowledge production and knowledge reproduction enlightening. This was a clear way of connecting the field of theory to the changing demand of us as students. Going from memorizing and applying knowledge to different scenarios to actually produce new knowledge is indeed a fundamental shift. In your text you are writing that all knowledge that we obtain is not science. I feel that you could have elaborated a bit more on that topic. perhaps by mentioning the role of philosophical theories.

    SvaraRadera
  6. That you state the production of new knowledge as central in theory, rather than reproducing existing knowledge proves your understanding of the concept. I also like that you have explained the process of reaching your conclusions, especially the part of what theory is not; clarifying potential confusions for those that still didn't grasp the concept.

    SvaraRadera
  7. I really liked how you have implied on the difference between reproducing and knowledge production. This reminded me how on the lecture we were given an example of the limits which school puts on us because it makes us focus on learning already established norms and theories being stated that this is the one and only truth.
    On the other hand, however, now we as university students are totally free to start thinking outside those boundaries or if when it comes to reproducing, this course for example helps us to be more critical as research “consumers”. It encourages us to understand the importance of using evidence and practice. Instead of being just transferred with knowledge, we are now aware how much more attentive we should be. Furthermore, once we enter the existing professional world of the media field, we would need to be able to justify our actions with the best available evidence. It somehow reminds me of the whole theory creating process.
    Good job on your reflection, I enjoyed reading it ☺

    SvaraRadera