During this week, we've delved further into Research and theory, reading about different aspects of what constitutes theory, and what does not. The texts associated with this week's theme was "What Theory is Not" by Robert Sutton and Barry Staw, and "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems" by Shirley Gregor, as well as the text "Influence of Social Media Use on Discussion Network Heterogeneity and Civic Engagement: The Moderating Role of Personality Traits" by Yonghwan Kim, Shih-Hsien Hsu & Homero Gil de Zúñiga, from Journal of Communication (IF: 2.011).
During Wednesday's seminar, we had some fruitful discussions about the nature of theory, and some important clarifications were made. There was some confusion in the wiki in the section with examples of theories, where "field of research" was easily mistaken for "research theory". I also learned that the text I'd chosen for this week, "Influence of Social Media Use on Discussion Network Heterogeneity and Civic Engagement: The Moderating Role of Personality Traits" could be filed under the "Digital politics theory", which states that "Using the internet is a positive predictor for all forms of political participation for young people. The authors did some predictions about traditional and digital participation. Media can form our views and our perception of politics. Internet use does not affect all groups in society similarly, rather it depends on a complex combination of personal and social characteristics, and the specific content and context of the medium." This was indeed the case with my text, where the authors saw a link between social media usage and civic interaction - claiming that high social media usage of introverts could be related to a heterogeneity within ones' network.
Furthermore, a lot of the discussion was focused on the validity of theories, and when/if a theory could ascend into a higher state - a fact. There was a general consensus that the phrase "When a theory is tested and accepted by a majority of experts in that field, it can be regarded as true." was erroneous, and should be replaced, due to the fact that - if we are to don a Cartesian doubt - (almost) nothing can be regarded as true. Therefore, a more humble version was presented: "When a theory is tested and accepted by a majority of experts in that field, it can be regarded as tested and accepted by a majority of experts in that field."
I liked you post, especially the last paragraph since it encapsulates mostly what I came to conclude myself: "can we really have something that is absolute truth, a fact?". I mean, even if the "experts" in the field say so, who are they to say what is a fact and not? I mean, everyone can be wrong, even the experts. I would say that That is a fact. So when I read your revised definition I was rather please. All it means is that "the experts" also believe it to be true, nothing more.
SvaraRadera