Exceptional Proff only

Introduction

In the last weeks, we have defined research, the importance of developing a research question and hypothesis and communicating in writing our thoughts as researchers.  This week we will survey theoretical approaches that might be useful to you and we will set the stage for next week’s lesson on qualitative methods.

Importance of Theories

First, let’s review the definition of a theory as defined by Moore (2001):

"The term ‘theory’ should be reserved for collections of statements that propose  causal explanations of phenomena  and meet the following three criteria.  First, most political scientists would agree that   the statements that compose a theory should be internally consistent.  Second, most political scientistswould also agree that  theories should be logically complete  (i.e., the hypotheses deduced from the theory should follow logically from the assumptions of the theory). Third, most political scientists would agree that  the set of statements must have falsifiable implications " (p. 1).

Theories are important tools that researchers have at their disposal within the greater literature. They help us to make sense of our research environment and serve as a way to help simplify our focus. One way to think about theories is as a lens that helps you to interpret data and by which you can frame your conclusions. As is presented in the literature, theories are developed in order to help us "explain, predict, and understand phenomena and in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical boundary assumptions" (Swanson, 2013, p. 1). Within our research the theoretical framework is something that presents an explicit statement about the theoretical assumptions and embeds your study into the larger existing knowledge base. Ultimately the theory presented within a study's theoretical framework is what explains why the research problem being assessed exists (Swanson, 2013). This theory is what guides the research and helps the researcher to answer their research question.    One common mistake that people make is mistaking a study's hypothesis for its theory.  A hypothesis is a prediction about what you expect to happen in your study, it's your educated guess or "gut feeling."  Hypotheses are speculations about very specific circumstances that have not been tested. A theory instead seeks to predict phenomena in a broad and more general context.  They are concepts that have been extensively tested within the discipline and are generally accepted among scholars.  

Criteria of a Good Theory

Moore (2001) explains that a good theory should meet the following six criteria:

"First, many scholars argue that theories should be evaluated based on their ability to produce hypotheses that are consistent with relevant evidence.  Second, many scholars contend that one should prefer general theories to less general theories. Third, one should prefer theories that produce several hypotheses to those that produce few. Fourth, Lakatos (1970) has proposed that we evaluate research programs rather than individual theories, and that we do so on the basis of whether they are degenerative or progressive. Fifth, we might compare the implications, preferring theories that have several policy implications to those which have few. Finally, parsimony or simplicity is generally considered a virtue" (Moore, 2001, p. 4).

Many of Moore's (2001) good theory qualities mirror that espoused by Stephen Van Evera (1997).  Van Evera argues that there are seven key criteria that help us to evaluate a theory's overall quality.

· A good theory must have a large degree of explanatory power.  "The theory's independent variable has a large effect on a wide range of phenomena under a wide range of conditions" (Van Evera, 1997, p. 17).

· A good theory must be parsimonious.  Essentially it needs to focus on a few simply arranged variables in order to explain phenomena.

· A good theory must satisfy our curiosity.

· A good theory should be clearly framed and easy to understand.  "A clearly framed theory fashions its variables from concepts that the theorist has clearly defined" and furthermore it "includes a full outline of the theory's explanation" and does not leave one "wondering how A causes B" (Van Evera 1997, p. 19).

· A good theory should be falsifiable.

· A good theory seeks to answer important questions "that matter to a wider world, or it helps others to answer questions" (Van Evera, 1997, p. 21).

· A good theory has "prescriptive richness.  It yields useful policy recommendations" (Van Evera, 1997, p. 21)f the world around us. 

Expanding Your Knowledge

Outside of the selected material presented this week, the only way you'll be able to continue to enhance your knowledge of the many theories that are out there is to look to the scholarly literature for examples of theories in action in your field. When it comes to integrating theory into your research people typically integrate this within their literature reviews since the theoretical concepts all speak to what we already know about the literature.  To demonstrate to readers, including your instructors, that you have a firm understanding for the theory in use, you'll need to be able to explain how you intend to use it and make the case for why it's a good fit for the research concept. 

A common problem in student papers is typically glazing over the theory and under theorizing.  In order to demonstrate that you've mastered the concept you need to show that you are knowledgeable about the key arguments surrounding the theory and be able to draw upon references from key researchers.  When discussing your theoretical framework in papers you should be able to explain the level of analysis that it operates as (states, groups, organizations, individuals, etc), the variables that it acknowledges, whether it seeks to explain or understand the world, and whether or not it supports prediction. Remember, you do not need to give every theory that is applicable to your topic. Just the one or two that have the most relevance. Don't forget to bring them back in the conclusion and tell the reader how your final analysis relates back to your theory.