Science and Art of theory development and evaluation
Researchers have debated for decades on the best criteria for developing and evaluating theories. A clear consensus has not yet been realized by there are various common qualities that most scholars believe a strong theory should portray. A theory can vary in terms of facts, values, and its relation with other theories; thus, these aspects should inform their development and appraisal. Accordingly, the below-discussed elements can be said to characterize the Science and Art of theory development and evaluation.
Initially, the science and art aspect of theory demands it to have the ability to falsify/testability. Philosophers, like Karl Popper, emphasized that testability is the pivotal basis upon which theory can be evaluated (Redmond, 2015). Notably, it is hard to prove a theory, but it can be disapproved/falsified. Approving a theory would be challenging because it would require any test to be repeated countless times. Other aspects, such as the validity of tests, variables, measurements, and the posed questions, restrict the idea of proving a theory. The testability aspect of a theory can be realized by comparing two competing theories to determine the one provide better facts and explanations of situations. Falsification can result in rejection of the theory; however, the practice is viewed as an essential theory development undertaking as through it, a falsified theory can be amended to be a good and reliable theory (IM EO, 2015).
Another crucial aspect of theory development and evaluation is determining its accuracy and power in explaining a situation. A reliable theory should have the ability to demonstrate a scenario and producing impressive results/relations. It should be accurate and supported by the evidence that is provided by the theorist and tests. Through statistical tests, a researcher should be able to show variation identified in the measurements, as argued by the theory. Claims and arguments made in the context of explanatory theories should agree with the known data/concepts (Redmond, 2015).
Accuracy and prediction are also vital aspects to consider in the development and evaluation of theories. Theories differ in the degree at which they predict or explain phenomena. These can be presented based on probabilities and percentages of accuracy. For example, a theory that correctly predicts a situation by 80% would be said to have higher precision than the one that scores 70%. Furthermore, the test and time may determine the theory’s accuracy. It is essential to ensure that the appropriate test is applied in evaluating a particular theory. Furthermore, the time change can be associated with a difference in the context or introduction of new variables (IM EO, 2015).
Internal and external consistency are also key elements that inform theory development and evaluation. Internal consistency regards to a postulate that is self-consistent and makes claims that connect with one another. The language that is used in theory can also determine the consistency of the theory; this is because different theories use varied concepts to refer to the same idea.
Lastly, other vital aspects to consider should include the theory simplicity, Heuristic, scope, and test of time. A strong theory is on that is simple to understand and employs a straightforward approach in explaining a situation. The heuristic element of the theory entails establishing useful/applicable is the proposed model. On the other hand, scope involves determining the breadth of the contexts that are predicted by the theory, while the test of time entails examining the relevance of the theory’s postulates when considered against time.