Thank you Professor. I really enjoy your videos and watched them multiple times. I am in awe of how you use your words diligently. Thank you for making it available on CZcams. I really liked the Sutton and Staw (1995) article on "What theory is not" and Weicks (1995) on "What theory is not, theorizing is". However, your having a conversation on a table analogy makes so much sense and simplifies the concept. I would be grateful if you can teach the art of theorizing in social science. Thank you Professor once again.
Thank you for the kind words. I try to be maximally precise with my use of language and specific terms throughout the sessions -- conceptual rigor is in my view essential to mutual understanding. And yes, Sutton & Staw and Weick are both great articles!
Thank you Professor. I really enjoy your videos and watched them multiple times. I am in awe of how you use your words diligently. Thank you for making it available on CZcams.
I really liked the Sutton and Staw (1995) article on "What theory is not" and Weicks (1995) on "What theory is not, theorizing is". However, your having a conversation on a table analogy makes so much sense and simplifies the concept. I would be grateful if you can teach the art of theorizing in social science.
Thank you Professor once again.
Thank you for the kind words. I try to be maximally precise with my use of language and specific terms throughout the sessions -- conceptual rigor is in my view essential to mutual understanding. And yes, Sutton & Staw and Weick are both great articles!
you may have wanted to talk about something else, but I think it is very helpful to deny the audience's evaluation of the importance of truth 🙂