The third theme in this course was a covering a more
practical area than the previuos two. Which I think is great thus we learn to
use the knowledge. The preparation of the theme included reading as previous
weeks but also to examine a journal and an article to apply what you read. I
participated on both the lecture and the seminar.
During the seminar we discussed what theory is and continued
with discussion about if math is theory or not. Were do we set the boundry for
what is a priori and what is based on
theories? Our conclusion was that math itself can’t be an theory because it is a priori knowledge. But there is a lot
of mathematic theories.
Another thing we discussed was the link between knowledge
and theories. Which is quite intresting because theories can be both ”true” and
”false”, they are only a way of explaining which is based on current
observations and valid theories. As an example the heliocentric model which is
a theory that based on observations said that the earth is the center of the
universe. However other observations have proved it wrong and new theories have
been formed. Our conclusion was that
theory can lead to knowledge, but is on their own not knowledge.
I read an article that described a methodology which can be
applied to get a secure authentication system based on biometrics. (Karthikayani K, 2015) However the
theory they used might not be the one that characteristics theory the best. But
I still think it has a value. The theory used was mainly Design and action if classified with Gregors taxanomy. (Gregor, 2006) As I wrote in the blogpost
before this theme Design and action
describes how we can do things. This category of theory in the taxanomy however
does not answer many why queries. However it is important to investigate how we
can use theoretical knowledge in development. Specially in the field of
informations systems. However this type of theory might not be classified as
theory in other fields.
I think it is hard to rate this kind of theory as weak and
strong due to the fact that it is often built on other theories. However if I would
make a try I would concentrate on how well they motivate and explain why we
should do as they present. In the article I read they did not motivate their
choice of method well. But to be theory of category Design and action it is not anything that is required in the
taxanomy. (Gregor, 2006) However if they had presented
the theories they used when investigating how to design the authentication
system and explained why we should do as they present. I would regard the theory of the article to be stronger. I would say
that what characterize strong theory is that it is complete and with strong and
valid arguments.
In conclusion theory can be said to be something that
explain phenomenas, why they occur, what will occur and/or shows us a way of
use theoretical knowledge in practice. Even if the last category might not
always be classified as theory in our field I would argue that it is. Mostly
due to the nature that we work with constructed artifacts which serves a
purpose. Because of that it essential to overbridge the gap between theories
and practical usage.
Sources
Gregor, S. (2006). R Esearch E Ssay. MIS Quarterly,
30(3), 611–642. Retrieved from
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5220/NatureofTheoryMISQ.pdf
Karthikayani
K, L. R. (2015). Designing a Bio-Capsule Secure Authentication System. Journal
of Information Technology & Software Engineering, 05(01), 1–4.
http://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7866.1000138
