What is used in theory analysis are the following: The scope, the parsimony, testability, empiricism, tautology, probability/ plausibility and validity (Akers 2013) which test logic and reason. Existing theories in academia have undergone a rigid process of testing so that Scientist can observe empiricism within the micro meso and macro environments. The process of determining validity is proposed herein as “The Theory of Integration of Ideas and Valuation”. It is an extension of Akers “Theory of Integration” which seeks to enhance the process of determining testability, plausibility and validity. This method consists of the use of social constructionism. Social constructionism can be affected by experience or expertise. It is the imagination that helps in the creation of theory. It is also intellect that helps the Scientist understand the theory, however, it is cognition that actions both imagination and intellect to result in the process of social constructionism. The process of “Theory Integration of Ideas” is as follows:
Make an observation; Create
a Statement; Determine facts, evidence and supporting evidence; Research to
verify the statement; Propose a theory; Test the theory by using existing
theory and integrating the new theory into it; validate the value of the theory.
The premise of the Theory of Integration of Ideas is: If more theories concur with the proposition
or the statement or the theory, the higher the probability that it is
valid. Therefore, the Theory of
Integration specifically actions empiricism in that the Scientist observed a
phenomena occurring which intrigued his interest so much so that he decided to
determine testability and plausibility in an effort to address validity.
MAKING AN OBSERVATION and noting it down is the first step in
the process. It uses the individuals
experience and expertise in order to be able to determine the facts, evidence
and supporting evidence of a given phenomena.
By making an observation, there is a chance that the individual gets
intrigued so much so that he or she makes a note of it resulting in a
generalized statement. It is this
statement that the individual seeks to make a query on. He asks himself or herself, is this true? Traditional Scientist would make a hypothesis
to test the theory under the Scientific Method.
However, the Theory of Integration of Ideas is another method to
supplement the foregoing to determine the probable validity. Scientific experiments and experimental
design can get very costly. Which is why
the practical Theory of Integration of Ideas is important to the student as they
become scientists.
The next step in the process is to CREATE A STATEMENT. This could be a generalization or even a
traditional hypothesis. The main
objective of this statement is to make a divide so that things could appear to
be clearer. For example, an individual
is being observed for behavior. The Scientist would like to know is the person interested in communicating. In the several months that the Scientist and
this individual have communicated the individual engages in behavior that would
indicates an interest that is contrary. Therefore,
the Scientist creates a statement, “This individual is not interested in
furthering communications resulting from the observed verbal and nonverbal
cues.”
The next step is to DETERMINE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. The Scientist would reflect on what he or she observed and experienced with regards to the phenomena in question. In this he or she constantly has the statement on hand. He recalls the specific actions or activity that occurred which would support his premise. In the example statement above “This individual is not interested in furthering communications resulting from the observed verbal and nonverbal cues,” the Scientist determines facts such as: This phenomena has been going on for months, the individual doesn’t primarily initiate the conversations, there have been no compliments given, the individual and the Scientist have only engaged in activity within the routine, there has not been any additional effort to advance the communication by the individual, there have been no invites to attend or do other activities outside of the routine and the Scientist has been giving concessions to an individual pertaining to his business.
In every phenomena there is a scenario, situation and
circumstance. The scenario is the day to
day consisting of the routine. The
situation on the other hand is the routine and finally the circumstance is unique to the individual/s. Each of these have facts,
proofs, evidence and supporting evidence.
For the purposes of the proposed process, it is going to look at these
selectively as to be conscious of the scope and nature of the phenomena.
For the purposes of this theory the circumstance, situation
and scenario are as follows:
Circumstance: The institution
(place), the Scientist and the individual have different objectives of which
are resulted from their circumstance related to happen stance, educational background
and experience. This places individuals
in a social hierarchy of which opportunities are contrasted for each.
Situation: The
individual and the Scientist are engaged in routine activities wherein they
require to communicate and involve one another.
This activity is a series of classes take from 1400H to 2230H. Both the individual and the Scientist are
engaged in a routine. And the routine
has specific demands of which they must abide.
Scenario: Daily
occurrences result in various scenario oftentimes, the individuals would talk
to each other, help each other complete tasks and talk to other individuals of
importance. This results in the
day-to-day scenario.
Facts are separated from evidence by what is called proof. Proof is a bonafide way to determine the truth of a premonition in this case the statement. Regaurdless, evidence helps substantiate a fact, for the facts above the evidence are henceforth the following:
This phenomena has been going on for months (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that they have been doing routine activities for 5 months. The individual doesn’t primarily initiate the conversations (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that the texts or calls to the individual are outbound. There have been no compliments given (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that there have been no written or verbal advances. The individuals have only engaged in activity together within the routine (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that they have only done activities together in the place the routine occurs. There has not been any additional effort to advance the communication by the individual (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that the Scientist has not received inbound interest via telecommunications. There have been no invites to attend or do other activities outside of the routine (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that there is no known activity together outside of the routine, ie going for lunch or the gym. The Scientist has been giving the individual concessions in the form of communication advancements (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that there are various inbound calls and texts. The Scientist has been giving concessions to an individual pertaining to his business (fact)- the evidence in this fact is that the routine results in attendance wherein constant exchanges of concessions and repudiation occor, essentially negotiations and persuasions through verbal and non verbal communications.
Proofs essentially substantiate a fact and prove evidence. Proofs acctuate the tangibility of specific actions which resulted in the fact. For example the routine has been occurring for months is a fact but the proof here is that there are schedules and the evidence is that both individuals have been engaged in such activity for 5 months. The “5 months” gives the fact the substantiated description of the specific actions which are the schedules that occurred to prove the fact. For the evidence above the proofs are as follows:
They have been doing routine activities for 5 months (evidence)- there are schedules (proof). The texts or calls to the individual are outbound (evidence)- the device statements reveal less inbound calls (proof). There have been no written or verbal advances (evidence)- there is not a tangible manifestation of interest (proof). They have only done activities together in the place the routine occurs (evidence)- there is not a tangible expression of activities conducted together separate from the routine (proof). That the Scientist has not received inbound interest via telecommunications (evidence)- there are no initiating outbound calls to the Scientist (proof). That there is no known activity together outside of the routine (evidence)- the individual does other activities separate from the individual (proof). There are various inbound calls and texts (evidence)- call logs reveal outbound calls/ texts (proof). The routine results in attendance wherein constant exchange of concessions and repudiation occors, essentially negotiations and persuasions through verbal and non verbal communications (evidence)- witnesses or persons of interest concur this has been occurring (proof).
Now that the facts and proofs have been provided, the Scientist would look at evidence. Evidence provides structure to the proofs which determine the facts. With evidence defined herein, supporting evidence can further provide a structure to it to additionally substantiate facts and proofs. Supporting evidence are followed by evidence in the preceding:
The nature of the expression of interest to the individual
was to initiate initiatives pertaining to an SBU of his company involving the expression of sex and intimacy through various multimedia. It involved a reasonable expression of
interest via texts, calls and individual communication via verbal and non
verbal cues. It was made expressly
obvious and evident and is largely discussed in class. However, the communication have not developed
in the way that the Scientist hoped.
Therefore, there are perhaps individual circumstantial factors which may
have resulted in the stifled communications.
In order to understand this, it is necessary to give a short profile of
the individuals in question.
The Individual: High school graduate, 25, subscribes to
modern social constructs of “hotness,” socialized per the social normativity
and expectation of society per the secondary school system, and has a girlfriend
who also subscribes to the social constructs of “hotness.”
The Scientist: Has a degree in an unspecified program from an institution of education, has another diploma in an unspecified program from an institution of education, subscribes to modern social constructs of “hotness,” single, and has a business.
With this mentioned the Scientist should now conduct his
research. The Scientist uses his
expertise obtained from his education and experience to come up with a
statement in the form of a theory. The
Scientist reviews all the facts that had transpired in the duration of the 5
months per the routine noted above along with various literatures to explain
the phenomena that took place.
RESEARCH:
Literature specifies that there are two forms of deterrence. Specific deterrence which means that offenders
of the law refrain from reoffending if they are apprehended. “General deterrence” on the other hand refers
to punishment of previous offenders serves as a method or an example to those
who have not yet committed a crime or are contemplating criminal activity. Further there is another form of deterrence referred
to as “informal deterrence” which is based on “actual or anticipated social
sanctions and other consequences of … deviance that prevent occurrence or
recurrence” (Akers 2013). The Akers literature
defines Anomie Theory as a “state of normlessness or lack of social regulation
in modern society as one condition that promotes higher rates of deviant behaviors”
(Akers 2013). Agency Theory says that concessions
are provided in exchange for control. Strain Theory can be defined as lack in social factors drives individuals to commit
deviance. Akers specifically says if
there is a discrepancy between aspirations and expectations the individual is
likely to engage in deviance (2013). Social Control Theory says social controls prevent people from engaging in
deviance. According to Akers there are
three types of “control”. Direct control
is when a punishment is imposed for noncompliance and when a reward is provided
for compliance. Indirect control on the
other hand is when a person engaging in deviance refrains from it because it
may cause significant other pain and disappointment. Moreover, according to Akers, internal control
can be defined as the conscious causes guilt which prevents deviance. Lastly Adversarial Theory of Law says that
there are two sides to any matter.
The Scientist PROPOSES A THEORY essentially a social construction:
THE THEORY OF REPUDIATION AND CONSESSIONS
This theory was socially constructed based on the behavior of the individuals involved. For example, the Scientist noted the following hypothesis “people in the socialization category and people in the educated category behave the way they do because of a deficiency and because they aspire."
The individual behaved the way he did (repudiation)
when given concessions because he has to rely on social normativity because he
lacks the education to have expertise to use experience to make his own
decision on the matter. This is an
educational deficiency. And such
deficiency serves as a method for this individual to aspire such that his
behavior concurs with the social normativity or the expectation with respect to
that environment and the routine.
The Scientist on the other hand, behaved the way he did
(concessions) despite possible repudiation because there is a lack of social
interactions resulting in reduced
socialization however despite this has the ability to rely on expertise gained
from education and experience henceforth not reliant on social
normativity. Henceforth the individual
is liberated from such expectation and can act to challenge normativity causing
disruption and innovation.
The next part of the process is to TEST THE THEORY:
Repudiation- The variable acted in the manner depicted above
because of Deterrence Theory. Through
his experience and education he wanted to avoid punishment or possible
punishment such as social sanctions.
This resulted in conformity a tenant of Anomie Theory. Which then the proposed Theory of Repudiation
and Concessions says that with concern of his education the individual had to
rely on social normativity in society to act.
Concessions – The Scientist acted in the manner depicted
above because of Agency Theory. The
Scientist has a business which could be considered “deviant,” which means not
many people would be compelled. This
results in a possible discrepancy between aspirations and expectations which
exacerbates the supposed “deviance” in the business concurring with the
proponents of Strain Theory. Regardless the
Scientist acted with innovation which concurs with Anomie Theory. And through his experience and education he
was able to use expertise to create the operation.
Deterrence and concessions are based on Social Control Theory
as both the individual and the Scientist exercised caution and discretion via negotiations
and persuasions through verbal and non verbal communications. This results in a struggle for position
essentially a manifestation of the Adversarial Theory of Law thus creating two
polar sides with contrasting beliefs. This
resulted in the divide between Socialization and Education which henceforth is a tautological theory.
This process results in the Theory of Integration of Ideas. The valuation becomes important when university
institutions and other academic institutions or government bodies seek “citations.” The revised Theory of Integration from Akers,
is the THEORY OF INTEGRATION OF IDEAS AND VALUATION because of a valuation component
supporting the capitalist system.
Valuation comes in the form of the number of theories used to socially
construct a theory. The higher the
number of theories used, the more valid it becomes and the higher the
commissions have to be paid. If the socially
constructed theory is to be published in a formal journal, it would have to
seek permission and pay out commissions to the copyright owners of the theories
used, hence this results in the “valuation” procedure.
WORK CITED
Akers, R., et
al. (2013). Criminological Theories. New York, USA. Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment