Theory, much like the definition of knowledge, is a hard word to precisely define. While reading Staw and Sutton's (1995) take on all of the things theory is not, I did come across one gem that may make it easier for us to understand what theory is. Basically, theory is the answer to the question of "why."
Many things can contribute to answering this question that one might mistake for theory in itself. For instance, references are a helpful tool in explaining a theory by using material that is already out there. References however do not explain the "why" and need to be linked to actual pertinent logic to be useful. Data is also extremely helpful, but a bunch of data is useless without the "why" (theory) to be answered by the "what" (data). Listing variables is also not theory since they need some connection to the "why" they are referring to. Diagrams are valuable tools to theory, but they cannot support themselves. It is important for a theory to be also verbal as well as represented by diagrams. Finally, hypotheses are useful in linking data with theory, yet they are still a "what" is to be expected and do not answer the "why."
The article I choose to read this week was Interactive to me - interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites found in the journal of New Media and Society with an impact factor of 1.394. This article takes a closer look at what previous research has indicated about the use of online interactive features. They conducted an online survey to track different habits of visitors to popular newspaper websites and if they take advantage of the websites interactivity. The conclusion of the survey pointed towards low participation and appreciation of interactive material by its users. I feel that they used theory type 5, design and action in this article. They had seen previous research dealing with the topic of interactivity and decided to answer those with results and provided suggestions to help in making users more apt to using interactive websites. The article first defined interactivity based on references from other literature, described the method and variables used when gathering the results, and along with the conclusion from the study posed suggestions to improved interactivity to increase users.
I think the benefits of using this type of theory is that it gives an answer to the question being asked as well as data that can be seen to understand why they got the results they did.
References:
Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642
Larsson, Anders Olof. "Interactive to Me - Interactive to You? A Study of Use and Appreciation of Interactivity on Swedish Newspaper Websites." New Media & Society 13 (2011): n. pag. Web. 2 Nov. 2012. <http://nms.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/content/13/7/1180>.
This is an interesting article, Nicole, thank you! =)
ReplyDeleteTaking the "Global village effect" in this context, it should be obvious that media interactivity makes audience participation level higher, not lower. Now I am trying to think of any web activity created by media that can be not appreciated by audience!
I absolutely agree with you Katya!! Nicole really nice article! Can you tell us some of the suggestions that were provided in order to help in making users more apt to using interactive websites?
ReplyDeleteYou say that the benefit with the type of theory being used in you article is that it gives answer to the question being asked. Isn’t that what a theory should do? I mean you defined theory as ”the answer to the question of why”. I don’t think thats a unique benefit for that type of theory but I think it’s good that the theory gave an answer to the ”why” because that showed that it’s actually a theory.
ReplyDelete