Weick – What theory is not, theorizing is:
1. Does Weick agree with Sutton and Staw? On what points? Why is the process of
theorizing important? How does this relate with the two broad views of science from
the Kerlinger and Lee chapter covered last week? Do you agree with this view?
Yes, 1) references, data, lists, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory.
2) theory is not something one adds, nor something transforms from weaker into
stronger by graphics or references.
It’s tough to judge whether it’s a theory or not when only the product is examined.
We need to know the context the product lives, which is the process of theorizing.
Just like differences between common sense and science, simple display of facts
doesn’t make theory.
2. How are the five non-theory categories described by Sutton and Staw related to
Weick’s theorizing? Do you think Asimov would agree with Weick?
The five categories summarize progress, give direction and serve as placemarks.
They have vestiges of theory but are not theory.
Yes, relativity of theory. Some seem closer than others.
3. Did you find this article useful? Why; why not? What can you use in the future that
you took from this article?
The five categories are theorizing.
Weick – disciplined imagination paper:
1. How is “theory” defined here? How does this definition relate to the definitions from
the other readings? What is a plausible theory? What are the criteria for "plausibility?"
Theory is a dimension rather than category, is an ordered set of assertions about a
generic behavior or structure assumed to hold throughout a significantly broad range
of specific instances.
A good theory is plausible. Qualities include interesting, obvious in novel way, a
source of unexpected connections, high in narrative rationality, aesthetically pleasing
or correspondent with presumed realities.
2. How does the process of theory-building relate to natural selection and artificial
selection?
Artificial selection: Theorist intentionally guides the evolutionary process.
Natural selection: the process is dominated by validation and empiricism.
3. How does Weick distinguish theory building from linear problem solving, and why
does he conclude, “when theorizing is modeled after problem solving, the outcomes
are unremarkable.” Why is this often more of a problem in the applied sciences than
in the basic sciences? What other factors constrain theorizing in applied areas other
than basic areas?
Theory building involves simultaneous parallel processing, not sequential thinking.
Everything seems reasonable after logical deduction?
Because we are constrained in choices. Natural scientists can pick problems they can
solve and work for colleague approbation, while we choose problems urgently need
solution.
4. Why is the heterogeneity of thought trials important? What are some suggestions or
solutions for increasing heterogeneity?
A theorizing process by a greater number of diverse conjectures produces better
theory than those by homogeneous conjectures, because after thought trials, the
process can be smarter than people. If one thought trial has a minimal effect on
generation of next thought trial, then a broader range of possibilities is tried.
1)Variation with a strong classification system is preferable.
2)any device that short circuits memory, foresight, or preference increase
independence of trials.
5. Based on Weick’s description on pp. 522 – 523, describe how you would conduct a
“thought trial” on a particular concrete research problem that interests you. Have you
ever done this before?
Select a research topic and replace abstract words and particular nouns with more
general words. Then think.
6. What are some selection criteria for retaining conjectures?
Plausibility and interest.
7. Is plausibility a substitute for validity in theory building? How does this fit with the
view of the scientific method discussed last week (theorydata verification…)?
What about “interest” as a selection criterion?
Yes. The theory testing by experiments is mimicked by process of conjecture testing by
an assumption test.
Whenever feeling interested, the reaction is a clue that current experience has been
tested against past experience and past understanding has been found inadequate.
8. How can theory construction be improved, according to Weick? What are the steps?
Is this difficult? Why or why not?
where the problem is stated (make assumptions more explicit, make representation
formulated (increase number of trials generated, increase heterogeneity of trials generated),
and at the step where criteria select among thought trials (apply criteria more consistently,
apply more criteria simultaneously, apply more diverse criteria).
Difficult! Many of them require independence among activities within a step and
independence between steps.
