Philosophy of Science (incl. theories) - Sparrowe & Mayer - Grounding Hypotheses

Question 1

How strong theory section grounds the hypotheses ? (3)

Answer 1

a) positioning hypotheses in relation to related research - engage prior literature and go beyond it to build a strong logical argument
b) developing a clear, logical argument explaining WHY the core variables are related to the proposed fashion
c) creating a sense of coherence in the relationships among the variables in the proposed model
- has to explain HOW one is going to add value to the research topic and WHY these hypotheses make sense individually while also fit together to form a framework

Question 2

What does engaging prior research mean in grounding hypotheses ?

Answer 2

• entering into constructive dialogue with other researchers (who have examined the theory)
• create a clear, theoretically driven narrative - not a literature review ! (one has to develop one’s own insights)

Question 3

What are its risks when engaging with prior research ? (2)

Answer 3

• risk of “argument by citation” - one has to build an argument based on explanatory logic, citing is relevant in building an argument but the logical reasoning should not be pushed back ==> merely citing sources does not constitute a logical argument, citations should be used to illustrate various elements of the logic of one’s own argument
• some researchers are consumed with telling the readers what others have done that the paper does not contain strong case for the current hypothesis
• opposite risk: ignoring prior related conversation - Failing to cite several highly relevant papers will lead readers to question the value of the contribution (especially when they believe one or more of the neglected articles is closely related to what the current work addresses) —> it has to be mentioned how the paper builds upon that literature - what has been done, why my proposition goes beyond prior work

Question 4

How to start a Theory section ?

Answer 4

• focus on underlying theoretical issues (not specific empirical results)
  1/ start with arguments themselves - they serve as the organising structure for ideas (start writing Theory and Hypotheses secession without a single citation - one will be able to see whether it is clear, consistent, and persuasive on its own
  2/ only then incorporate the ongoing theoretical narrative into one’s own explanatory logic (relationship of the proposed ideas to the larger conversation becomes evident)
  3/ lastly, one can go back and incorporate prior work, giving credit to whom it is due and explain how the new work complements/challenges their work

Persuasive logic is best served by a combination of all three approaches: building on established theory, offering relevant empirical evidence, and explaining how variation in X leads to variation in Y - but explanatory logic serves as the foundation

Question 5

What is the purpose of the theory section ?

Answer 5

The Theory section should prove that (2):

• the hypothesis is not a surprise (the paper clearly led up to this specific prediction)
• the readers understand clearly why the constructs are associated (they might not agree but they must understand)

Question 6

How does one build an argument/explanatory logic ?

Answer 6

the most challenging - the goal = to persuade the readers that the claims made in the hypothesis are plausible (the readers are skeptical due to their experiences and expertise)

• substantiating hypotheses
• utilising multiple theories
• coherence

Question 7

How does logic forges the connection between the two variables and can be framed ?

Answer 7

1) link a hypothesis to a similar logical relationship that is already established in theory/conceptual framework - the author must offer enough verbal explication for the reader that he/she understands this established framework without reading it
2) offer empirical evidence supporting claims similar to what the hypothesis states (if it has been shown to occur in similar circumstances, then it should also apply in the present circumstances
3) focus on how the hypothesised relationship occurs by crafting a narrative that describes the role of intervening states and/or processes - explain carefully
- another consideration when framing hypotheses is context - hypotheses can be applied individually or be limited to specific contexts (industries/national cultures) => the boundary conditions need to be identified so that the relevance of the proposed relationships is explicit

Question 8

How does one utilize multiple theories ?

Answer 8

The challenge of explaining the mechanisms underlying the hypotheses increases (= explanatory coherence)

      - theories might be from the same area or different underlying disciplines (the latter is harder)
      - need for each additional theory must be clearly explained 
      - integrating ideas from different areas has significant potential to contribute to theory - but the integration must be carefully done

Question 9

How does one combine theories ? (3)

Answer 9

1/ putting one theory agains another - data decide the winner - this might leave readers confused (especially when both theories are plausible) or explaining when and why one theory should take precedence over the other (explain the conditions under which the predictions of each theory are the most applicable and test these predictions)
2/ combining theories implies that relationship is additive and that theories (independent variables) are linked to dependent variables - risk is to combine variables simply because it was done in the past - you can use a comparison but then also draw differences
3/ seek integration between two theories - show how are they complementary - hat is, how the assumptions of one theory implicitly require those of the other to be fully realized, and vice versa.

• this requires a thorough understanding of the logic underpinning each theory, and how the two are related has to be articulated before hypotheses are framed

Question 10

What is coherence in the theory section ?

Answer 10

• ability to explain the choices - hold a theoretical narrative together
• ! explain why this variables were selected and how they fit together in a way that creates a strong and coherent theoretical contribution and doesn’t leave the reader wondering why other variables weren’t included
• figures can help readers visualise the framework (but it does not have to be there)
• what matters is that a clear, overarching research question drives the hypotheses, and one explains clearly, by drawing on the underlying theoretical and empirical work on the research topic, how these explanatory variables come together.

Question 11

What are the pitfalls when developing hypotheses (3) ?

Answer 11

Lack of specifics

• occurs when one’s explanatory logic draws from a theory that speaks to a much broader or more general domain
• The particulars and specifics need to be explained—and this guidance applies to all instances in which the domain of the theory one draws on to buttress claims is broader or more general than that of the hypotheses themselves

Fragmented theorising

• when authors have a model with multiple hypothesized relationships in which each link is supported by logic drawn from a different theory. This approach may be motivated by the mistaken belief that the more theories, the better
• it is not meant to suggest that authors should not use multiple theories to support their hypotheses. Rather, it suggests that support drawn from multiple theories needs to be integrated into a coherent and cohesive explanatory narrative.

Stating the obvious

• If a hypothesis states the obvious or makes a claim that is common knowledge, then, although true, it also is likely to be trivial
• rather flirt with the null hypothesis—that is, reflect on the plausibility of the opposite argument or the absence of a relationship
• then, frame the alternative hypotheses as alternatives to what can be seen as plausible, or even as received wisdom.