Link Research to Relevant Theory (National Research Council, 2002)
This means that, within research, the long-term goal is to generate models (theories) that can create more stable (not “perfect”) explanations for specific events, behaviors, states of mind, interventions, etc. All hypotheses (questions), within the specific field of study, need to be linked to some overarching model (theory) or conceptual framework that guides the entire collection of investigations within the specific field (not just the specific hypothesis of an individual research study). In this process of intentional, if not mandatory linking, the process of science generates cumulative knowledge by building upon, refining, and occasionally replacing the theoretical understanding (the overarching model) for each field of study and its subfields.
Okay. So, while that initially seems simple (based on the “title” of the principle), this principle really is complex. I can explain it, though, with some terms … specifically 2, that will also seem complex until I explain them. The 2 terms are:
- Mental Representation of The Real World
- Equilibration (Piaget’s model to help explain the process of how an individual grows from an infant with no knowledge about this world, to having an increasingly complex understanding … really, this concept of “an increasingly complex understanding” is just another way of stating “Mental Representation of The Real World” … so the complexity within this SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE 2 is already getting easier to understand)
Mental Representation of The Real World (MRTRW):
This is a concept you might see in certain areas of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Generally, within these and other specific fields of study, the authors are likely to regard this concept (MRTRW) as “common knowledge” and will not cite it. Considering that, I will not cite the origin of its conception, either. Just remember that I did not create the concept, but am just explaining and using it.
The Mental Representation of the Real World is the total collection of an individual’s thoughts, beliefs, and understanding about the real world at a given moment in time.
But before we move forward, what do I mean by real world. The real world is all of what exists outside of an individual’s perceptions … outside of anybody’s perceptions. For example, there are animals that perceive the infrared spectrum – a phenomenon of light that humans cannot see, but can only measure with tools. An individual who has never heard of or used these tools, though, could not have “infrared light” as a part of her/his MRTRW.
Another example: A toddler who has not yet learned about letters will not have written words, signs for names, the process of reading, etc. as any part of her/his MRTRW. The toddler will be able to see the lines, shapes, colors, and other visual properties of letters and words, but will not be able to recognize visual letters, words, names, sentences, etc. as unique and complex phenomena. As we gain experiences, our MRTRW increases and changes. Now, this seems simple enough, until we start to think deeper and ask how this process actually happens. This is where the Piagetian concept of equilibration helps us understand how and why this process happens.
Equilibration:
Not that you really need to know, but Piaget was an assistant to Binet, when the French government began to recognize and wanted to understand why some of the school students were not successful in school. Well, Binet (with Piaget) spent considerable time researching what was happening and then trying to determine a method that would be able to test students who were struggling and determine some sort of causal mechanism for why this was happening.
The result was a test that was able to identify and quantify a specific property within the collection of an individual’s cognitive abilities, specifically an individual’s intellectual capacity to process and understand the information presented within the school system, relative to the rate of the typical student of the same age. In general, this was a test to determine an individual’s intellectual ability divided by the individual’s age. This was the individual’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ).
We no longer use IQ as this simple equation, but the general idea is that this test provides something like a bell curve with a mean (the average, or “expected value”) of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. As we move along the bell curve to the left (toward zero), we make specific note of the values 85 and 70 (the 1st and 2nd standard deviations below the mean – the average student of a specific age). At 85, the individual will struggle with school work, but will still be able to maintain something like a reasonable grasp of schoolwork. However, as a student moves closer to the score of 70, the student will have an increasing struggle to the point of not being able to be successful within the school system. (There are several causes, some neurological, some environmental, with some combined, but that is not important, here.)
The USA liked this idea, and at Stanford University, they converted Binet’s test into the English language and made the questions relevant to the culture and history of the USA. Hence, the test became the Stanford-Binet Test (now set of tests) to measure an individual’s intellectual capacity relative to same-aged peers. There are other tests, of course … and better ones (McDermott, Watkins, & Rhoad, 2014) [Yes, I do know Dr. McDermott and Anna Rhoad, having taken a course in test development taught by Dr. McDermott, with Anna Rhoad as the Teaching Assistant. It is still a very important study, though. If measuring IQ is important to you, you need to read that paper.]
Informative, huh?
Well, back to equilibration. Piaget’s model of equilibration is about how the individual develops cognitively by processing what the individual experiences, at the individual’s current capacity to process the relevant properties of any given experience. In other words, an individual will not be able to process information that requires specific pieces of information that were never experienced before.
For example, let’s consider that a toddler’s family has a pet dog – a small, 4-legged, non-human creature that runs around the house, eats out of a bowl on the floor, and gets petted. From repeated experiences of hearing the parents, the toddler has learned that this particular creature is a dog.
Now, consider that the toddler and family make their first visit to the neighbor’s house, and the neighbor also has a four-legged, non-human creature that runs around the house, eats out of a bowl on the floor, and gets petted. As soon as the toddler sees this neighbor’s creature, the toddler immediately believes and calls this creature a dog based on the amount of qualities this creature has that are similar to what the toddler currently understands about creatures. However, while there are many similar qualities, this neighbor’s pet is a cat.
The toddler is not wrong based on the extent of knowledge the toddler has about creatures. Through repeated corrections guided by the toddler’s parents and the neighbor, the toddler’s information about the world meets conflicting information. The toddler is confused initially, which creates an imbalance in the toddler cognitive structure of the world (disequilibrium). The toddler needs to adapt to this new information. The toddler eventually learns to see different qualities about this creature and its behavior, and that the label for the animal with these qualities is “cat.”
Piaget called this acquisition of new knowledge from a new experience accommodation. The infant adapts by using this new information to adapt her/his cognitive structure, and returning to a state of equilibration.
Now consider that also within this neighbor’s house is a gray object in the corner, shaped somewhat like a small human on a pedestal, with the object slightly bent over and having an arm pointing upward, it’s hand holding something (a disc). There is no such similar object in the toddler’s home. The toddler focusses her/his attention on this object and stares at it, quizzically. The toddler’s parents notice the toddler’s interest in this object, and the toddler hears the parents repeatedly label it as a statue. From the parent’s giving this new object a vocal label, the toddler assimilates this completely new information about this new object with unique qualities.
Assimilation and accommodation are the two distinct ways that an individual uses adaptation to reconcile new experiences that upset the equilibrium of the individual’s cognitive structures and understanding (of the world).
The individual’s new experiences create disequilibrium, and this disequilibrium creates the individual’s motivation to continue seeking new experiences, exploring all of the parts of the world that are within the individual’s capability.
The model does get increasingly sophisticated, particularly when the individual develops enough experiences, information, and strategies for thinking, and the individual becomes able to see a great complexity of diverse cognitive structures as having a unique property that creates a remarkably new way to perceive and understand (grouping and segregating cognitive structures), the individual develops a major shift in cognitive development, what Piaget called a gestalt, resulting in the individual moving into a fundamentally higher order of thinking about and understanding the structure and functioning of the world.
If you map Piaget’s process, or constructivist model of genetic epistemology (which includes equilibration and the movement through gestalts, or major periods of developing cognitive structures and the impact of their functioning) as a process, onto The Mental Representation of The Real World, we can see how an individual can be born with little to no information about the real world and develop increasingly sophisticated predictions about the what, why, and how about the real world. This, however, does not mean that the individual’s MRTRW will ever be as accurate as the real world.
No two individuals will have the same MRTRW, either, and some will have parts that are more accurate than other people’s. But within each person’s MRTRW, there are related pieces of information, beliefs, and complex structures that allow for predicting what is going to happen in the real world.
In other words, we can think of the MRTRW as a collection of theories (or models) for how the real world works, allowing us to make predictions by asking questions and using the different parts of the MRTRW to provide expectations.
Now, let’s think about SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE 2: Link Research To Relevant Theory.
The questions we ask during scientific inquiry have elements that relate specifically to other elements within an overarching model (theory or conceptual framework) within a field of study, and will enhance our ability to predict relevant responses, behavior, elements, solutions in the real world. It is also important that we recognize that the pre-existing models, theories, conceptual frameworks with the given field of study will necessarily guide how the scientific inquiry proceeds.
In other words, what has been done and discovered in the past will guide how we investigate new questions, and the discoveries have the potential to replace what was once accepted as part of body of knowledge within the field of study.
What have we learned from Scientific Principle 2: Link Research to Relevant Theory?
To think stronger
- An integral part of what makes “science” science is that the current or new information necessarily and directly relates to some other work or collection of works that are already integral to the related, existing body of knowledge – like our Mental Representation of the Real World
- Any new piece of information ought also to identify and integrate with extant research (which doesn’t just mean that the research “just exists,” but that this research (information) is regarded by the experts in this specific field to be the most relevant research; this is not to be confused with seminal research – which refers to the original research that STARTED a body of knowledge or a specific field or subject within a body of knowledge)
- For our concern in using this SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPAL 2 in the way we understand and evaluate any information we access, we must look for and consider what we already know (if anything) AND the relevant information created by others, not just what we are told (ASSIMILATE new information)
- Do your own analysis of the available information! (this is called a descriptive analysis, rather than the word people far too commonly misuse – calling it “research“)
- If you can’t find any available information outside of what you’re being told, then be concerned about the validity and reliability of the information
- If the people talking to you are the ones providing you the only source of relevant background information (or research), then this is a clear bias – in research, we call this a “conflict of interest” bias
- Check other “independent experts” (not related to whomever is providing you the information) – if no reliable, independent experts definitively support the claim or information, usually through demonstration (peer-reviewed research), chances are that someone is trying to deceive you … often to take your money and give you nothing of real value in return, or to persuade you to believe and follow something that is not real or true (reliable or valid)
