Misunderstanding Metatheorizing

Abstract

Metatheorizing is an important but generally poorly understood genre of social science inquiry that has particular relevance to systems research. In this paper, I define and present the major characteristics of metatheoretical research, discuss why it is neglected as a form of research and how it is often misunderstood and inadequately represented in the systems and management science literature. I illustrate the discussion with some examples of misunderstanding of metatheorizing from the systems science literature. I also make some recommendations for how researchers can improve their own metatheorizing and so, hopefully, help this important form of research become more widely acknowledged and critically appreciated.

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

“…The term “meta‐narrative review” was coined for a similar umbrella approach to mapping and synthesising information from different sources, perspectives and research traditions . When used to search, interpret and synthesise theories, umbrella reviews use an inductive process to locate similar propositions within multiple theories or to construct a metatheory . Reviews of theory can also be considered as part of a realist review.…”

“…63 When used to search, interpret and synthesise theories, umbrella reviews use an inductive process to locate similar propositions within multiple theories or to construct a metatheory. 40,[64][65][66][67] Reviews of theory can also be considered as part of a realist review.…”

The assessment of individual moral goodness

“…“Philosophical metatheorizing focuses on the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical dimensions of theories. It builds its propositions and metatheorizing by systems of logic, first principles and deliberately enunciated a priori (before the fact) commitments” (Edwards, , pp. 721–722).…”

“…Edwards (), Lewis and Grimes (), as well as Lewis and Kelemen () expand on a particular type of metatheorizing, metaparadigm inquiry (see Table ), in which exploratory types of inquiry are distinguished from theory building using multiple paradigms. Applied to ethics, purely exploratory inquiry often results in presentation of conflicting paradigms that leave trade‐offs rather than integration (Greenwood, ; Miner & Petocz, ).…”

Conceptualising the foundations of sustainability focused innovation policy: From constructivism to holism

“…The hypothesis is that, whilst the evolutionary principles of systems theory have been integrated into multiple, evolving transition frameworks which underlie development of policy, the unique contribution to knowledge concerning sustainability focused innovation (referred to as the phenomenon of interest or POI ) provided by the distinct systems framework, has been under-realised. A comparative metatheoretical study of the epistemological and political foundations of theory ( Burrell and Morgan, 1979 ; Edwards, 2014 ; Lewis and Grimes, 1999 ) is used to explore this proposition. The emerging Geography of Transitions literature ( Coenen and Truffer, 2012 ; Murphy, 2015 ; Shove and Walker, 2007 ; Truffer et al., 2015 ), with its systemic, spatial focus, is considered alongside systems theory ( Bertalanffy, 1968 ; Francois, 2006 ; Luhmann, 1995 ).…”