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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2004). Using causal mapping—individual and group, traditional and new. In M. Pidd (Ed.), Systems modeling: Theory and practice (pp. 127–143). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14(3), 257–267.
Appelbaum, R. P. (1970). Theories of social change. Chicago: Markham.
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Basic Books.
Baake, K. (2003). Metaphor and knowledge: The challenges of writing science (Studies in Scientific and Technical Communication). State University of New York Press.
Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488–503.
Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change (J. C. Whitehouse, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Burrell, G. (1997). Pandemonium: Towards a retro-organizational theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
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.
Daneke, G. A. (1999). Systemic choices: Nonlinear dynamics and practical management. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Daneke, G. A. (1997). From metaphor to method: Nonlinear science and practical management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(3), 249.
Dekkers, R. (2008). Adapting organizations: The instance of business process re-engineering. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 45–66.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Revised ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Fedigan, L. (1973). Conceptual systems theory and teaching. Educational Leadership, 30(8), 765–968.
Feuer, L. S. (1995). Varieties of scientific experience: Emotive aims in scientific hypotheses. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong (Oxford Cognitive Science). New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria: Approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522.
Fuller, T., & Moran, P. (2000). Moving beyond metaphor. Emergence, 2(1), 50–71.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, g, Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 417–430.
Hammond, D. (2003). The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory. Boulder, Colorado: University Press.
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.
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.
James, W. (1909). A pluralistic universe (Hibbert Lectures at Manchester College on the Present Situation in Philosophy). UK: Manchester.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science (Chandler Publications in Anthropology and Sociology). San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
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.
Kuipers, B. (1982). The ”map in the head” metaphor. Environment and Behavior, 14(2), 202–220.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
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.
MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (1999). Conditioned emergence: A dissipative structures approach to transformation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 297–316.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605–622.
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.
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.
Phillips, B., & Johnstone, L. (2007). The invisible crisis of modern sociology: Reconstructing sociology’s fuindamental assumptions. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm.
Quine, W. V. O. (1980). From a logical point of view (2, Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robbins, D. (2000). Vygotsky’s psychology-philosophy: A metaphor for language theory and learning. New York: Kluwer.
Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29.
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, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Seabury, M. B. (1991). Critical thinking via the abstraction ladder. English Journal, 80(2), 44–49.
Shotter, J. (2005). Inside the moment of managing: Wittgenstein and the everyday dynamics of our expressive-responsive activities. Organization Studies, 26(1), 113–135.
Smith, M. E. (2003). Changing an organisation’s culture: Correlates of success and failure. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 249–261.
Speicher, M. Marga. (1997). Theory, metatheory, metaphor-introduction. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25(1), 7–9.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
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.
Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 1–33.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
Wallis, S. E. (2008). Validation of theory: Exploring and reframing Popper’s worlds. Integral Review, 4(2), 71–91.
Wallis, S. E. (2009a). Seeking the robust core of organisational learning theory. International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 1(2), 180–193.
Wallis, S. E. (2009b). Seeking the robust core of social entrepreneurship theory. In J. A. Goldstein, J. K. Hazy, & J. Silberstang (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship & complexity. Litchfield Park, AZ: ISCE Publishing.
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.
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.
Wallis, S. E. (2011). Avoiding policy failure: A workable approach. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.
Wallis, S. E. (2013). How to choose between policy proposals: A simple tool based on systems thinking and complexity theory. E:CO—Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 15(3), 94–120.
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.
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.
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.
An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9537-8.
About this article
Cite this article
Wallis, S.E. Abstraction and Insight: Building Better Conceptual Systems to Support More Effective Social Change. Found Sci 20, 189–198 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9359-x
- Conceptual systems
- Theory building
- Theory of Theory