If you face a situation when you are about to compare different typologies against each other, how do you do this?
I've come up with some criteria such as: the types (or cluster) should occur as natural cluster empirically, most cases should be able to be classified and the typology should be sound from a clinical point of view.
Hi Peter - this is a question I've also been working to address in some of my own research. In addition to the criteria you have come up with, you could add: to what degree has the typology served as an effective framework for answering substantive questions in the literature? This criteria would only be effective with typologies that have been tested empirically, however (in my field, we have an overabundance of untested theory!).
I've added a reference below that may be of some help. Doty & Glick provide some guidelines for developing effective typologies. Perhaps you could also evaluate the typologies you are examining based on their guidelines to see how well they measure up. Hope this helps!
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230-251.
thanks a lot, this exactly the type of reference I've searched for !
I conduct research on Jung's typology and would think that an important to do would be to examine the fundamental propositions of a typology (Jung's is a theory rather than a model) and then working out how a typology can be empirically investigated. If a typology is a model, rather than a theory, there will still be presuppositions about the model.
i guess you're right in a way. still it's a little frustrating to evaluate different typologies differently not being able to compare their validity
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology