1 Social Science Theories of the 20 th Century: Evolving, or What? Generally, academic disciplines suggest that they are advancing and/or evolving because its researchers are, “adding to the storehouse of knowledge.” However, from a systems and/or evolutionary perspective, such an increase is merely additive and does not really represent any increase in complexity, usefulness, or an evolutionary advance. Recent insights, backed by rigorous analyses, have shown that the evolution of a theory can be measured by quantifying the systemic interrelatedness of the logical structure within each theory. In those studies, evolutionary advance has been linked to increased co-causality between the aspects of each conceptual system – and increased systemic co-causality has been linked to dramatic improvements in the usefulness of those theories. Here, we look at the amalgamation of various studies to see if a pattern emerges – are we truly evolving towards theories of greater usefulness and effectiveness, or are we “churning in place?”

2 Overview  Dubin, Stinchcombe, Kaplan, etc.: agree theories are more effective when they are more highly structured (however, they did not provide a useful way to measure the structure).  Wallis pioneered “Propositional Analysis.”  To quantify structure  Found relationship between structure and effectiveness of theory.  Confirmed untested assumptions of previous scholars.  Structure may include: Complexity (number of concepts), and Robustness (“systemicity” or interrelatedness between concepts).  Faust & Meehl: suggest “cliometric metatheory” to link the structure of theory with the success of those theories.

3 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).

4 Abstract Example A D C B A C C E Propositions Within a Theory Rigorously Integrated A B C D E Four linear logics poorly connected C = 5 R = 0.20 NOTE: Propositions may be drawn from one theory… or many theories NOTE: Concatenated aspect is privileged (emergent, Bateson’s dual description)

5 Previous Study Shows The Evolution Of Theory in two Measures of Structure Highly useful theories have concepts that are more co-causally interrelated / connected During the Scientific Revolution, theories become more complex NOTE the “power curve” Over the “evolutionary hump”

6 Sample: Nine Highly Cited Theories of Motivation from Psychological Review Concepts in each theory Relatedness on Scale of Zero to One Trend Line for Complexity Declining Complexity years until it disappears completely Very slow increase in Robustness years until it becomes fully effective

7 Sample: Complexity of 10 Theories of Conflict from Sociology Slowly declining complexity – may disappear circa 2044

8 Sample: Robustness of 10 Theories of Conflict from Sociology Slow Increase – may become fully successful circa 2712

9 Two Comparable Economic Policies Implemented in the Early 1980s Price & Income Accords (Australia) C = 14 R = 0.0 Wassenaar Accords (Netherlands) C = 5 R = 0.20

10 Two Comparable Economic Policies of the Present USA Election Cycle Democratic C = 15 R = 0.13 Republican C = 6 R = 0

11 Insights & Conclusions  Mixed bag – There does not seem to be an evolution towards theories of greater usefulness.  Complexity of theories of motivation appear to be declining. Inappropriate bias towards parsimony?  The rigorous integration of multiple theories shows promise.  Future studies: Larger sample size; Include more sub-fields; Include more journals as sources.  YOUR IMPRESSIONS? 

12 To Better Serve Humanity We Must Directly Address Theory FIRST - make theories that are more complex.  More collaboration between scholars.  Greater collaboration between disciplines.  More scholar-practitioner collaboration.  Journals should encourage more complex theories.  Journals should evaluate submissions based on Robustness THEN – we may create theories that are more Robust and so are more effective. I look forward to collaborating with YOU!

13 MANY THANKS! The 56 th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences July 15-20, 2012 – San Jose, California, USA 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

14 Where do Some Theories Stand - Robustness? Institutional Theory (14 theories) R = 0.31 Peak Performance (2 theories) R = 0.17 Organizational Learning Theory (12 theories) R = 0.16 Gandhian Ethics (single theory) R = 0.25 Integral Theory (single theory) R = 0.10 Social Entrepreneurship Theory (6 theories) R = 0.13 CAS Theory (20 theories) R = 0.63 Complexity Theory (8 theories) R = 0.56 Social Entrepreneurship (CT) (9 theories) R = 0.14

15 Where do Some Theories Stand in Terms of Complexity Institutional Theory (14 theories) C = 30 Peak Performance (2 theories) C = 23 Organizational Learning Theory (12 theories) C = 19 Gandhian Ethics (single theory) C = 20 Integral Theory (single theory) C = 28 Social Entrepreneurship Theory (6 theories) C = 23 Social Entrepreneurship (CT) (9 theories) C = 56