1. Post-Positivist Perspectives on Theory Development
Chapter Three
Post-Positivist Perspectives on Theory Development

2. Philosophical Roots of Post-Positivism:
Classical Positivism
Philosophy developed by Auguste Comte in 19th century
Classical positivism argues that knowledge must pass through theological and metaphysical stages before reaching scientific or positive stage
Foundation of knowledge is in observable phenomena and formal logic

3. Logical Positivism
Vienna Circle scholars in 1920s-1930s
Distinction between science and metaphysics through verifiability (analytic or empirical) principle
Science meaningful; metaphysics meaningless
Searched for ideal language for science
Considered falsifiability of theories (Popper)
Theory = axioms, postulates, definitions, and theorems

4. The Demise of Positivism
Logical positivism largely rejected by the 1960s: Why?
Verifiability principle came under serious question
Observation seen as theory-laden rather than value-free
Logical positivists seen as detached from workings of actual scientists who were trying to build actual theories

5. Post-Positivist Theory: Metatheoretical Commitments
Ontology
Post-positivists are modified realists who also recognize social construction
Beliefs about reality can be “real” to some people/groups
Social constructions yield shared patterns of (predictable) behavior amenable to scientific investigation
Social constructions are reified and treated as objective by actors

6. Epistemology
Look for causal explanations for regularities in behavior
But feel it is difficult to separate the knower and the known
Recognize fallabilities of scientific method
Use critiques of other scholars on evidence and logic
Axiology
Attempt to be objective as possible

7. Structure of Post-Positivist Theory
Note: Miller uses Dubin. I put more common terms in parentheses.
Units: Constructs that make up the theory (conceptual definition of variables)
Laws of interaction: Relationships among the constructs
Boundaries: Who, when, and where the theory applies
Propositions: Logic deductions about how model works (conceptual explanation of hypotheses)
Empirical Indicators: Operational definitions of units (variables)
Hypotheses: Propositions that can be empirically tested (operationalization of hypotheses)

8. Functions of Post-Positivist Theory
Explanation: Answering questions of why empirical phenomena occur
Prediction: Using explanation to predict what might happen in a similar situation
Control: Influencing empirical phenomena given theoretical knowledge
In sum: explain, predict, control

9. Criteria for Evaluating the Worth of a Theory
A theory should be accurate. In determining accuracy, a theory must also be testable.
A theory should be consistent, both internally and with other theories.
A theory should have relatively broad scope.
A theory should be relatively parsimonious.
A theory should be heuristic.

10. Theory Development
Post-positivists rely on scientific method in the development of theory: Why?
Scientific method maximizes objectivity and the separation between knower and known (epistemology).
Scientific method allows for causal explanation by (1) establishing temporal order, (2) establishing covariation, and (3) ruling out alternative explanations. (experiments)

11. Why are experiments preferred design by Post-positivists?
Features of experiments—
Random selection of sample from larger population
Rule out volunteer or contextual bias (e.g. college students who are all majoring in communication and want to get extra credit by volunteering)
Manipulation of the Independent Variable
Control group and experimental group for comparison (often several experimental groups)
Random assignment of subjects to groups (control and experimental)

12. Theory Development (cont.)
Theory Verification
No theory covers all aspects or circumstances of a phenomenon so we can’t say it’s “true”
But a good theory lends itself to tests of verification
Falsifiability
Method of “conjecture and refutation” seen as ideal for science

13. Growth of Post-Positivist Research
Growth of theories can be viewed as
an evolutionary process ( systematic and cumulative)
as a revolutionary process
See Notes on Kuhn—do recall that he is talking about paradigm shifts rather than specific theories within a paradigm.
Is communication discipline in a pre-paradigmatic
state? What do you think and why?