Jump to navigation Jump to search What makes a theory "good"? Six criteria might be said to be properties of a strong theory.
Recognize a mismatch between intentions and outcomes Bypass or deny the mismatch Cover up the bypass Defensive routines produce mixed messages at two levels: Level I - Denial Routine recognize a mixed message, inconsistency, gap, or mismatch between intentions and outcomes act like it is not a mixed message or inconsistency, deny that defensive routines exist, bypass embarrassment and threat Level II - Bypass Routine make this bypass action undiscussable cover-up the bypass make the undiscussable nature of bypasses undiscussable; cover up the cover-up Example of Mixed-Message A Mixed-Message, Outsider gets Invited to a Meeting: I saw John today and he and Betty have set up a meeting for March.
It's just a couple of us and this is the very, very, very first time we're ever going to be talking about the idea of a Web page for the group. You're welcome to come but you need to understand it's just at the very beginning stages and our thought was there would be another meeting where we could have You're welcome to come but you need to understand sorta where we are with the process.
Give me a call if you got any questions. Regarding the meeting, if this is the "very, very, very first time we're ever going to be talking about the idea of a Web page for the group," then how is it "the three of us Is the intention here to help me understand the process?
If so, why the mixed-message? More on Model I Excluded from this analysis are protective defensive routines that occur in response to some threatening environmental situation involving pathological or unjust acts.
These defensive actions can be productive e. Defensive reasoning relies on the idea of deterministic causality, the claim that "A will cause B.
Inevitable gaps, between stored knowledge and knowledge required to act effectively in new situations, go unrecognized. Therefore, the need to change the status quo, the present status of knowledge, gets overlooked. Not recognizing that any innovation is likely to be inadequate, the need to monitor the change gets bypassed.
With no monitoring, efforts to reliably repeat innovative actions are impossible. Specifying the action strategies or skills required to produce the desired consequences and the conditions necessary to maintain them is also impossible. Actions cannot be tested; solving problems cannot contribute to basic theory, for example, to ideas about how to achieve organizational effectiveness.
At the heart of the matter, participants do not integrate theory and practice. Model I is usually the "theory-in-use" by individuals, groups, intergroups, and organizations, with little variation in how it gets expressed.
Model II Model II's main characteristic is double-loop learning, a productive reasoning process that involves minimal interpersonal defensiveness. Wide gaps exist between espoused theories and theories-in-use and action science is designed to help participants minimize these gaps.
Model II is the domain of usable knowledge. It has high standards for questioning goals and testing the validity of claims. Productive reasoning relies on the idea of probabilistic causality, the claim that "A will probably cause B.
It recognizes the inherent gap that exists between stored knowledge and the knowledge required to act effectively, the continual need to change the status quo. Participants who reason productively recognize that any innovation is likely to be inadequate and therefore needs monitoring.
They reliably repeat effective actions, making outcomes of initiatives known publicly. They specify the action strategies and skills required to produce the desired consequences and the conditions necessary to maintain them.
Action is testable, so problem-solving contributes to basic theory, theory gets integrated into practice. What are some more of the characteristics of these effective groups?
Effective groups resolve difficult problems by taking innovative action relatively soon. As the participants question each others underlying programs or the credibility of their ideas they maintain high levels of interpersonal openness.
They accept that while openness is potentially or actually embarrassing, threatening, or frustrating, openness is necessary to increase trust and individuality in their group. Individual participants may deny the difficulties involved in carrying out their challenging plans but the members freely challenge, test, and correct the claims.
By possessing high levels of action science skills, their minimally defensive interpersonal and group relations enable the group members to innovate and respond productively. Model II is usually espoused but not practiced by individuals, groups, intergroups, and organizations, with a wide variation in how it gets expressed.
The central orientation in action science is therefore that on a nearly universal basis, in practically all cultures and across genders, a wide gap exists between espoused theory Model II and theory-in-use Model I. Action science is designed to help participants minimize these gaps.
Data Types [ Top ] Also critically important in action science is whether data, knowledge, or information is actionable. This difficult term is defined best by first outlining its opposite, non-actionable data.
Actionable and non-actionable data both consist of relatively directly observable conversations, or descriptions of actual or proposed problems.Action Science is a strategy for increasing the skills and confidence of individuals in groups to create any kind of organization and to foster long-term individual and group effectiveness.
One can not exist without the other. Theory evaluation including description, concept analysis, theory critique, testing and support. These process are based on the view that science is a human process that includes not only valid findings but also observation, agreements, useful solutions to problems.
Theory evaluation is central to the development of theory; it is the responsibility of each clinician, academician. Some Thoughts on Psychological Report Writing The following notes include some thoughts of "models" for writing psychological reports.
Comments are welcome. In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches.. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific.
Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach.
To understand how to evaluate theories, first, we must be aware what theory really means. A theory, in the scientific sense, is an explanation of confirmed observations.
These come from repeated recording of trained observers, and replications in laboratories. This article describes how to use the Evaluate Model module in Azure Machine Learning Studio to measure the accuracy of a trained model. You provide a dataset containing scores generated from a model, and the Evaluate Model module computes a set of industry-standard evaluation metrics.