Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abstraction and Insight: Building Better Conceptual Systems to Support More Effective Social Change

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When creating theory to understand or implement change at the social and/or organizational level, it is generally accepted that part of the theory building process includes a process of abstraction. While the process of abstraction is well understood, it is not so well understood how abstractions “fit” together to enable the creation of better theory. Starting with a few simple ideas, this paper explores one way we work with abstractions. This exploration challenges the traditionally held importance of abstracting concepts from experience. That traditional focus has been one-sided—pushing science toward the discovery of data without the balancing process that occurs with the integration of the data. Without such balance, the sciences have been pushed toward fragmentation. Instead, in the present paper, new emphasis is placed on the relationship between abstract concepts. Specifically, this paper suggests that a better theory is one that is constructed of concepts that exist on a similar level of abstraction. Suggestions are made for quantifying this claim and using the insights to enable scholars and practitioners to create more effective theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2004). Using causal mapping: Individual and group, traditional and new Chichester. In M. Pidd (Ed.), Systems modeling: Theory and practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14(3), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, R. P. (1970). Theories of Social Change. Chicago: Markham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baake, K. (2003). Metaphor and knowledge: The challenges of writing science (studies in scientific and technical communication). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change (Trans.: J. C. Whitehouse). Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Burrell, G. (1997). Pandemonium: Towards a retro-organizational theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curseu, P., Schalk, R., & Schruijer, S. (2010). The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1258–1291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneke, G. A. (1999). Systemic choices: Nonlinear dynamics and practical management. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneke, G. A. (1997). From metaphor to method: Nonlinear science and practical management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(3), 249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, R. (2008). Adapting organizations: The instance of business process re-engineering. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedigan, L. (1973). Conceptual systems theory and teaching. Educational Leadership, 30(8), 765–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuer, L. S. (1995). Varieties of scientific experience: Emotive aims in scientific hypotheses. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong (Oxford cognitive science). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria: Approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, T., & Moran, P. (2000). Moving beyond metaphor. Emergence, 2(1), 50–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., et al. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, D. (2003). The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory. Boulder, CO: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J., & Yanow, D. (2008). Methodology by metaphor: Ways of seeing in painting and research. Organization Studies, 29(1), 23–44. doi:10.1177/0170840607086635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, D. W. L. (2002). Metaphorical ideas as mediating artifacts for the social construction of knowledge: Implications from the writings of Dewey and Vygotsky. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 197.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1909). A pluralistic universe (Hibbert Lectures at Manchester College on the Present Situation in Philosophy). UK: Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science (Chandler Publications in Anthropology and Sociology). San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, E. H. (2001). The idols of organizational theory from Francis Bacon to the Dilbert Principle. [Essay]. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers, B. (1982). The “map in the head” metaphor. Environment and Behavior, 14(2), 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letiche, H., & van Uden, J. (1998). Answers to a discussion note: On the ‘Metaphor of the Metaphor’. Organization Studies, 19(6), 1029–1033. doi:10.1177/017084069801900606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (1999). Conditioned emergence: A dissipative structures approach to transformation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 211–266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B., & Johnstone, L. (2007). The invisible crisis of modern sociology: Reconstructing sociology’s fuindamental assumptions. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1980). From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, D. (2000). Vygotsky’s psychology–philosophy: A metaphor for language theory and learning. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roller, D., & Roller, D. H. D. (1954). The development of the concept of electric charge: Electricity from the Greeks to Coulomb (Vol. 8, Harvard case histories in experimental science). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Seabury, M. B. (1991). Critical thinking via the abstraction ladder. English Journal, 80(2), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (2005). Inside the moment of managing: Wittgenstein and the everyday dynamics of our expressive–responsive activities. Organization Studies, 26(1), 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. E. (2003). Changing an organisation’s culture: Correlates of success and failure. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speicher, M. (1997). Theory, metatheory, metaphor-introduction. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25(1), 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1565–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2008). Validation of theory: Exploring and reframing Popper’s worlds. Integral Review, 4(2), 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2009a). Seeking the robust core of organisational learning theory. International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 1(2), 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2009b). Seeking the robust core of social entrepreneurship theory. In J. A. Goldstein, J. K. Hazy, & J. Silberstang (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and complexity. Litchfield Park, AZ: ISCE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010a). The structure of theory and the structure of scientific revolutions: What constitutes an advance in theory? In S. E. Wallis (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems theory in management: Views, tools, and advancements (pp. 151–174). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010b). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6 (Special Issue: “Emerging Perspectives of Metatheory and Theory”).

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010c). Towards developing effective ethics for effective behavior. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(4), 536–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2011). Avoiding policy failure: A workable approach. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2013). How to choose between policy proposals: A simple tool based on systems. E:CO-Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 15(3), 94–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (in press: publication anticipated in 2014). A systems approach to understanding theory: Finding the core, identifying opportunities for improvement, and integrating fragmented fields. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory, Petaluma, CA, USA

    Steven E. Wallis

  2. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Steven E. Wallis

Authors
  1. Steven E. Wallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven E. Wallis.

Additional information

I appreciate the excellent insights of three anonymous reviewers whose suggestions have led to an improved paper. All remaining mistakes I claim as my own.

This paper is based on a presentation titled “Existing and Emerging Methods for Integrating Theories Within and Between Disciplines” at the 56th annual meeting of the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS). July 15–22, 2012, at San Jose State University, California.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallis, S.E. Abstraction and Insight: Building Better Conceptual Systems to Support More Effective Social Change. Found Sci 19, 353–362 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9344-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9344-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation