ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Session 6 - Building a Theory Part 2
2
Name:Comment/question about assigned readings & videos
3
Hyeongseo ParkWhat are your thoughts on publishing non-findings? The productivity paradox of IT was one of the focal topics in MIS in the late 90s and early 2000s, which was based upon the premise that information technology did NOT have a significant effect on increasing corporate productivity. Wouldn't there also be cases where rejections of attempted theories spark greater ideas?
4
Finn PetersenI really like Toulmin's strucutre of an argument. In the theory justification slides (s. 7) it sounds like the strucutre should be used for the argument (bllet 6). However, I feel like you can apply it different levels from subsection to full paper. For the full paper this means that the intro and lit review is the background; theory part is the claim; and empirical part provides the evidence.
5
Chaofan ZhaiI believe my question from last session is related to this session topic :
It is easy to come up with a theory to explain the anomaly or phenomeon, it is not easy to exam the theory is correct.
I see a lot of papers create or borrow a theory to propose a hypothesis, and then use empirical data to test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported by the empirical data, the authors may say my theory is correct. I dont think so. There could be other theories may also derive the same hypothesis.
How to prove your theory is correct , not the others?(theory A -> H1, theory B -> H1 , H1 is correct -> which theory is correct?)
6
Joe JenkinsWhen building our argument, when do we know if we have enough propositions that lead and support our conclusion? Managemnet as a social science builds from general scientific explanations from a broad variety of domains. Drawing from these allied domains, we might be able to draw upon many slightly varried propositions that support our conclusion. How do we know when these propositions from allied domains start to become a detrement to the overall flow of the paper instead of leading and supporting our conclusion?
7
Seola KimWhen providing semantic & constitutive definitions (and also climbing the ladder of abstraction), to what extent among the nomological network, should the authors provide?
8
YoungJin KwonAs explained in the slides and videos, in many cases, a various theories can support our main theoretical and empirical arguments in different ways. My question is, "How would you select theories most fitted to our research context?" For example, we might have a series of choices like 1) old and established theory vs. new and less established theory, 2) a theory born in our fields (e.g., Management/Information Systems) vs. a theory born in other fields (e.g., Economics/Psychology). We can bring all related theorie to the table, but that might be redundant and misleading. Is there any efficient and effective way?
9
Christina KoWhat is the precise difference between a crucial hypothesis and a "regular" hythesis (referring the slide 'Exercise Developing Propositions & Hypotheses")? Also, I often feel as though a phenomenon can be described by multiple different theories and it is hard to determine which would be the best one, especially if we are taking an integrative approach. Do you have any tips?
10
Yeon Jin Kim-The difference between proposition and hypothesis is understandable, however I am confused about the difference between proposition and assumption.
11
Alyson Gounden RockIn the slides, where you discuss Socrates' syllogism, you mention major and minor premises. Are major premises always at the theory level and minor premises at the empircal level?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100