Thorngate's Postulate of Appropriate Complexity

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thor Gates postulate of reasonable complexity (Engl. Thorngate's postulate of commensurate complexity ) is a description of a social science concerned phenomenon which research directions and results. In summary, Karl E. Weick takes the opinion in this concept that while working on social science research only two of the three metatheoretical virtues "General, Exact, Simple" can be achieved and the third must necessarily be neglected. The name of the concept is derived from the Canadian social psychologist Warren Thorngate ( University of Alberta ), whose work Weick quotes.

background

The background to the theorem is the debate between two sociologists - Kenneth J. Gergen and Barry R. Schlenker - about the validity of sociological theories. While Schlenker is of the opinion that the context of sociological behavior is only superficially connected to the observations, Gergen seemed to be of the opinion that the context penetrates all levels of observation and thus the context becomes the essential variable in the observation. To simplify matters, this statement could be presented in such a way that sociological observations do not contain any generalized knowledge but only have “historical” value: Sociology would be a form of historical research. In considering these positions, Thorngate writes:

“ It is impossible for a theory of social behavior to be general, simple, or brief and precise at the same time.
It is impossible for a theory of social behavior to be simultaneously general, simple or parsimonious, and accurate. "

- Warren Thorngate

This statement is supported by a statement by Gergen:

“ The more general a simple theory, the less reliable it will be in predicting specifics.
The more general a simple theory, the less accurate it will be in predicting specifics. "

- Kenneth J. Gergen

Interpretation of the theorem by Weick

General, Accurate and Simple

Weick describes the model using a clock with the word general at 12 o'clock, the word "accurate" at 4 o'clock and the word "simple" at 8 o'clock .

According to his representation, research can be defined in a continuum on the dial between the three forms:

  • if the research is between “exact” and “simple”, it is no longer generally usable.
  • When research focuses on general / simple statements, they lack accuracy,
  • if it focuses on general / detailed research it is no longer easy.

Weick thus implicitly shows the following:

  • Research that is simple and general (10 o'clock research) is inaccurate;
  • Research that is accurate and simple (6 o'clock research) can only be applied to very limited areas and
  • Research that is general and accurate (2 o'clock research) will be endowed with considerable complexity.

Weick cites psychoanalytic theory ( Otto Fenichel ), Levinson's organizational diagnosis and Gregory Bateson's theory of the ecology of the mind as examples of 2 o'clock research . He recognizes six o'clock research (simple and precise but not general), for example, in the negotiation theory of Komorita and Chertkoff, but also in a large part of field and laboratory research. As examples of 10 o'clock research (simple and general but imprecise), Weick names the Peter principle , the concept of loose coupling and organized anarchy.

For Weick, this means that research approaches which, according to this description, inevitably have to concentrate on one or two dimensions, should be supplemented by other approaches. This is the only way to create complete images of research objects. Thus the postulate is descriptive for the research and prescriptive for the research methodology.

criticism

While the concept is generally accepted, Fred Dickinson, Carol Blair, and Brian L. Ott criticize Weick's use of the word "Accurate". Accuracy (in the sense of precision) is difficult to achieve, especially in studies of memory and similarly difficult to qualify topics. They suggest substituting the term "interpretive utility".

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Warren Thorngate: "In general" vs. "It depends": Some comments on the Gergen-Schlenker debate. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2, pp. 404-410 (1976). quoted in Karl E. Weick: The process of organizing. Translated by Gerhard Hauck. 4th edition. Suhrkamp Taschenbücher Wissenschaft 1194, Frankfurt 2007, ISBN 978-3-518-28794-1 , p. 54 ff.
  2. ↑ a b c d Fred Dickinson, Carol Blair, Brian L. Ott: Places of Public Memory: The Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials. University of Alabama Press, 2010, p. 48, note 104.
  3. ↑ a b c Warren Thorngate: "In General" vs. "It depends": Some Comments of the Gergen-Schlenker Debate. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2, pp. 404-410 (1976).
  4. ↑ Kenneth J. Gergen: Social psychology as history. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 26, (1973), pp. 309-320, cited in Warren Thorngate: "In General" vs. "It depends": Some Comments of the Gergen-Schlenker Debate. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2, pp. 404-410 (1976).
  5. ↑ Barry R. Schlenker: Social Psychology and science. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 29 (1974), pp. 1-15; quoted in Warren Thorngate: "In General" vs. "It depends": Some Comments of the Gergen-Schlenker Debate. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2, pp. 404-410 (1976).
  6. ↑ Kenneth J. Gergen: Social psychology, science and history. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2 (1976), 2, pp. 373-383, cited in Warren Thorngate: "In General" vs. "It depends": Some Comments of the Gergen-Schlenker Debate. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2, pp. 404-410 (1976).
  7. ↑ Otto Fenichel: The psychoanalytic theory of neuroses. Norton, New York 1945.
  8. ^ H. Levinson: Organizational diagnosis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1972.
  9. ↑ Gregory W. Bateson: Steps to an ecology of mind.Ballantine, New York 1972.
  10. ^ Samuel Shozo Komorita and Jerome M. Chertkoff : A bargaining theory of coalition formation. In: Psychological Review. 1973, 80, pp. 149-162.
  11. ↑ Laurence J. Peter, Raymond Hull: The Peter Principle or the Hierarchy of the Incapable. Rowohlt Taschenbuch-Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1972, Chapter 1.
  12. ^ Karl E. Weick: Sources of order in Underorganized Systems: Themes in Recend Organizational Theory. In: Karl E. Weick (Ed.): Making Sense of the Organization. University of Michigan / Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA 2001, ISBN 0-631-22317-7 , pp. 32-57.