Theme 3: Research and Theory

The nature of theory can be hard to determine. It’s form and structure seems to vary between faculties and articles. Therefore, in order to understand what theory truly is, it can first be easier to identify theory by what it is not. In What Theory is Not, Sutton and Staw present five elements that are mistaken for theory. First, “references are not theory”, meaning citations cannot be used in place of argument. Second, “data are not theory.” Empirical evidence presents an important role in developing and guiding theory, yet cannot be used in replacement of theory itself. Third and fourth “lists of variables or constructs are not theory” and “diagrams are not theory.” Variables can connect and predictions can be made, but they must be explained in order to present theory. In the same way, diagrams can display connections yet cannot be used in place of explanation. And last, “hypotheses are not theory.” Hypothesis also predicts, but lacks causal logic. Hypothesis presents what is expected to occur, but not why.

If we use these to exemplify what theory is not, we can begin to ascertain what theory actually is. Put simply, none of these elements answer the question why. This is essentially what theory should do. Theory establishes causal relationships among phenomena. It “delves into underlying processes” (Sutton and Staw, 378) to illustrate the reasons behind such relationships. In The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, this is endorsed by Gregor who states that “generalizations about phenomena, interaction, and causations are thought to be at the core of theory.” (Gregor, 616) Theory is used to rationalize and decipher the world. To put theory in more straightforward terms: theory uses testable data and empirical evidence to predict and explain occurrence and nonoccurrence.

In order to further examine theory, I chose to appraise an article published in New Media & Society.  The article, Facebook Time: Technological and institutional affordances for media memories, theorizes that social media technologies influence temporal experience of their users. More specifically, Kaun and Stiernstedt develop the notion of “social media time” by examining Facebook use amongst members of a Facebook fan page. The article analyzed this page in relation to “three different notions of time: archive, flow and narrative.” (Kaun and Stiernstedt, 1155)

To assess the relationship between social media and temporal experience, the authors studied “DT64-Das Jugendradio der DDR.” This Facebook page dedicates itself to a radio station that operated in East Germany between 1964 and 1993. This particular page was chosen as there was no official documentation or archives kept of the radio station. Therefore, it serves as an unofficial archive of “media memories”.  There were multiple methods of analyzing the page and its temporal aspects in relation to media memories. A survey was extended to the members of the Facebook page. The surveys intended to collect data on demographics and the extent of user involvement. Software was also used to calculate posts, response rate, and exchange amongst users. Interviews and a general analysis of the page over time were also conducted.

In terms of archive, Facebook was found to be somewhat limited as Facebook favors newer posts and posts by moderators. Ordering and indexing were not well developed. Yet the page still provided archival functions where there had been none before. The flow of temporal experience was found to be one of “immediacy” and “liveness” (Kaun and Stiernstedt, 1161). Facebook was also found to transform traditional narrative. Stories and memories were not constrained to traditional beginnings and endings of narrative form. In conclusion, Facebook, and social media in general, was shown to structure temporality in unique ways.

This theory formulates itself as “theory for explaining” as explicated by Gregor. The article sought to examine unique temporal affordances of Facebook and why they arise (how and why being the basis of theory for explaining). Predictions for the future were not a concern. This presents a limiting aspect of this type of theory. There was no additional research into the affects “social media time” had on users or in a larger part, what these affordances can determine about a society that is increasingly using social media. Perhaps this could be tested in further research as this article presents a basis for it. A benefit of this theory is that it explains new phenomena. In terms of humanity, social media and Facebook are very new developments. As social media platforms are continuously growing, this type of study is still relevant.

Sources: 

What Theory is Not, Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw

The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, Shirley Gregor

Facebook time: Technological and institutional affordances for media memories, Anne Kaun and Fredrik Stiernstedt