1 WELCOME!

2 Critical Integrative Metatheory: New Methods to Evaluate Psychological Theories & Models for Review Steven E. Wallis, PhD Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory Adjunct Faculty, Capella University Fellow, Institute for Social Innovation, Fielding Graduate University Editorial Board, Integral Review International Congress of Psychology 2012 July – Cape Town, South Africa

3 We want psychology to be of greater benefit to humanity Learning Psychoanalysis Motivation Communication Behaviorism Cognition Stress Emotions

4 Emergence of Psychology Psychology is NOT much appreciated by other sciences or the general public. For GOOD reasons! We are not advancing as a science – there is no proof that psychology is better now than 50 years ago. Why have we failed to improve?

5 ReviewSubmission Theory Creation One Path to Improving Psychology is the Process of Submission & Review

6 Participant Characteristics Sampling Procedures Sampling size, power, precision Measures and Covariates Research Design Recruitment Statistics Data Analysis Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., Methods Review Many Rigorous Standards for Evaluating Methods

7 Theory Review Standards for Evaluating Theory?

8 What is theory? Lens Map Metaphor Story Diagram Narrative Set of axioms Model Ethics Policy Mental model Schema Mind map Assumptions These are all names for a conceptual construct that may be useful for engaging the world.

9 Theory A theory is a conceptual construct, a set of abstract causal relationships. Empowers (to take effective action) Restricts (limits our sense of “truth”) Is developed by education, experience, and social construction Is (apparently) INNESCAPABLE (so it is apparently IMPORTANT)

10 Metaphorically… Metatheory is a theoretical “lens” that may be directed toward the investigation of theory.

11 Or, more formally… Metatheory is primarily the study of theory, including the development of overarching combinations of theory, as well as the development and application of theorems for analyses that reveal underlying assumptions about theory and theorizing.

12 Three Ways to Evaluate Theory Creation Critical Analysis Categorization

13 Common Methods for Evaluating the Creation of Theory (and issues) Voracious reading (what? How much?) Be brave, Creative, etc… (how to measure?) Research (empirical data – what is data?) Synthesize existing theory (recursive problem) Reflexivity (how to measure?) Abstraction (How much is best?) Grounded Theory (more structured approach) Reflexive Dimensional Analysis (more structured approach)

14 Common Methods for Categorization of Theory Historical Geographical Unit level / Middle Range / Grand Style (Literary, Academic, Eristic, etc.) Purpose (Analyzing, Explaining, Predicting) (ISSUE: Within a category, What Theories are Better?)

15 Common Methods for Critical Analysis of Theory Plausibility Parsimony Correspondence to observed facts Coherence to existing theory Application Propositional Analysis Falsification (ISSUE: Rarely Done, Rarely Quantified)

16 CRITICAL Metatheory Reflects The Need For RIGOR Better to have a specific metatheoretical lens The results must be quantified If our lens of metatheory is cloudy, we won’t see the lens of theory with clarity

17 EXAMPLE: Propositional Analysis 1. Identify the logical propositions. 2. Diagram the causal relationships. 3. Integrate diagrams. 4. Identify and count the “Concatenated” aspects (two or more causal influences). 5. Count the total number of aspects (Complexity of the theory). 6. Calculate the Robustness (divide Concatenated aspects by total aspects).

18 Abstract Example A D C B A C C E Propositions within a Theory Carefully Integrated A B C D E C = 5 R = 0.20

19 Previous Research Evolution of Theory & Changes in Complexity Scientific Revolution Complex theories – some usefulness

20 Previous Research Evolution of Theory & Changes in Robustness Scientific Revolution Robust theories – Very Useful

21 Theory of motivation and competence (White, 1959) 1. More new stimulation 4. More effect on environment 3. More action2. More cognition 6. More feelings of efficacy (motivation) 5. More learning to interact effectively with environment (more competence) C = 6 R = 0.17

22 Theory of planned behavior (Perkins et al., 2007) 1. More expected value 2. More subjective norms 3. More perceived behavioral control 4. More Behavioral intentions 5. More behavior C = 5 R = 0.20

23 Combined Theories 1. More new stimulation 4. More effect on environment 3. More action (includes behavior) 2. More cognition (includes behavioral intentions 5. More learning to interact effectively with environment (more competence) (includes perceived behavioral control) 6. More feelings of efficacy (motivation) 7. More expected value 8. More subjective norms C = 8 R = 0.25

24 Comparing Psychological Theories TheoryRobustnessComplexity Perkins et al., White, Combined.258 MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENT

25 Approach Provides Editors and Reviewers With a Standard for Evaluating Theory Propositional Analysis to determine Complexity and Robustness Theories of higher Complexity are privileged Theories of higher Robustness are privileged Theory Review

26 To Improve, We Must Push Theories of Psychology to Higher Levels of Complexity and Robustness

27 Without Rigorous Standards We Become Biased and Our Theories Become Simple Theory of motivation Change in Complexity 90 years of (de) evolution 150 years until it vanishes?!?

28 Without Rigorous Standards We Become Biased and Our Theories Become Weak Theory of motivation Change in Robustness 90 years of (weak) evolution 900 years to success?!?

29 To Conclude… Empirical data is “theory laden” – we cannot understand data without understanding theory. If we are make psychology more beneficial to humanity we must directly address theory. If we are to have effective theory, that theory must be addressed in a rigorous scientific way (Critical Integrative Metatheory) Those methods must be applied to review submissions to journals

30 Many Thanks! Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D. Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory Fellow, Institute for Social Innovation, Fielding Graduate University Adjunct Faculty, Capella University Editorial Board, Integral Review Fielding Graduate University is a 501 c (3) non-profit university of higher learning.