The Structure of Theory and the Structure of Scientific Revolution: What Constitutes an Advance in Theory? Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D. (HOD class of 2006) Institute for Social Innovation (ISI) Fellow Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory Fielding Graduate University, Summer Session July 14-18, Kansas City, MO From a chapter in “Cybernetics and Systems Theory in Management: Tools, Views and Advancements.” Steven E. Wallis (Ed.): IGI Global, Publisher.

2 What is “theory” ? 1. A set of interrelated propositions 2. Similar to a schema, mental model, frame of reference, or lens to see the world (AND… the study of theory is properly called metatheory) What is “metatheory” ? 1. Investigation of the creation, structure, validation and falsification of theories (including the interrelatedness of propositions) 2. A theory that is created of other theories

3 Two Problems With Kuhn’s Idea 1. Fails to define “how much change” makes something revolutionary 2. Fails to specifically identify specifically, “what change” in theory enables a revolution These problems open the door for spurious claims of revolutionary advances in theory and practice

4 ? Spurious claims cause confusion and reduce legitimacy of scholars, practitioners, and management programs… For example: TQM claims to be a Kuhnian revolution TQM fails at least 75% of the time

5 How Do We Investigate This? Kuhn’s revolutions were described in the physical sciences, while TQM relates to the social sciences. Are the sciences relatable / comparable?

6 Bridging the Great Divide From a metatheoretical perspective, we may analyze theories from the physical sciences, draw inferences, and transfer those insights to the social sciences so that we may gain insight and learn how to achieve true paradigm revolutions (with attendant benefits for humanity). IF we can find some commonality between the two sciences…

7 We Can Compare the Physical and Social Sciences Because: Theories of both sciences contain propositions. The interrelatedness of those propositions is quantifiable providing a reliable basis for comparison. “Propositional analysis” is used to objectively quantify the structure or “robustness” of the theory

8 Robustness (R) is a measure of interrelatedness (or structure). Metaphorically… Low R = scattered bricks Medium R = Pile of bricks High R = Brick house

9 Structure of Theory Each theory contains propositions Each proposition contains aspects (differentiable concept or phenomena) Causal relationships between aspects may be: Linear (A causes B causes C) Concatenated (A and B cause C) (Concatenated aspects are privileged per Bateson’s double description, and their greater complexity) “C” is the concatenated aspect here

10 Using Propositional Analysis to Easily Find Robustness Consider a theory of five aspects (A, B, C, D, & E) The theory contains two propositions: 1. A causes B 2. More C and more D cause more E. (of these, only one (E) is concatenated) Therefore, the robustness of this theory is 0.20 (the result of one concatenated aspect divided by five total aspects). Robustness is the RATIO of the well-explained (concatenated) to the poorly explained (linear) aspects of the theory

11 This Analysis Uses propositional analysis to quantify Robustness (on a scale from zero to one) Finds changes to structure of electrostatic attraction theory over 1,500 Years Asks: What is the relationship between the structure of theory and Kuhnian paradigm revolution?

12 Plutarch 100 CE Magnet Pushes Air Pushes Iron Exhalations Rubbing Pushes Small Objects Amber Exhalations Pushes Air Robustness = 0.14 (scattered bricks) (one concatenated aspect divided by seven total aspects) Note the linearity of the causal logic No Revolution

13 Gilbert 1600 CE Robustness of 0.21 (pile of bricks) (three concatenated aspects divided by 14 total aspects) No Revolution Better – but mostly linear

14 Coulomb 1785 CE Robustness of 1.0 (brick house) (three concatenated aspects divided by three total aspects) CHARGEFORCE DISTANCE Note the co-causality of the logic Revolution! Kuhn says this theory is of the paradigmatic revolution. Thus, it may also be said that a robustness of 1.0 is a revolutionary version of theory.

15 Table Summarizing Theories Year Total Number of Aspects Number of Concatenated Aspects RobustnessName of theorist or theory Plutarch Cardan Gilbert Two Fluid theory Coulomb Metaphorically: where do you want to live?

16 Advancing Robustness Toward Paradigm Revolution Note the asymptotic advance as the theory becomes more robust – suggesting a “power curve” or “quantum increase” in the capacity of the theory Revolution! Applied reliably around the world for centuries. (7,000 + related patents)

17 Just as an aside: Note the spike in complexity during the scientific revolution Change in Aspects over Time

18 How Robust is Your Theory? Here’s how some social theories stand along this path toward robustness. Benchmark: Institutional Theory R = 0.31 Peak Performance R = 0.17 Organizational Learning Theory R = 0.16 Gandhian Ethics R = 0.25 Integral Theory R = 0.10 Social Entrepreneurship Theory R = 0.13 Complex Adaptive Systems Theory R = 0.63 Complexity Theory R = 0.56 Closer to Revolution Further from Revolution

19 A Few Research Ideas: Study other theories from the physical sciences – do they follow the same curve toward revolution? Study social theories – are the more effective theories more robust? What difficulties and opportunities might arise as we learn to see the word through different (more robust) theories? (for more ideas, read the chapter)

20 To Conclude…. Measuring the robustness of a theory appears to be a useful predictor of true paradigmatic revolution and an objective way to measure the advancement of theory If YOU make and use robust theory, than YOU might create a true paradigmatic revolution! The potential benefits to humanity are very large (just imagine a “social revolution” on the scale of the “computer revolution”). By following the path to robustness, we may achieve true paradigm shift in years, not centuries.