For instance, if you have a particular strategy developed for addressing an education research issue, would you refer to it as a "model" or a "strategy"?
In research, models could be a relationship equation, a flow diagram, a fishbone diagram etc. The type of the model to be used for research or derived from research depends on the research question and the thought process of the researcher.
strategic model if you are the first one to conceptualize the construct
In research, model is a pictorial or graphic representation of key concepts. it shows , (with the help of arrows and other diagrams ),the relationship between various types of variables e.g. independent , dependent, moderating, mediating variables etc.
A scientific model is a causal explanation of how variables interact to produce a phenomenon, usually lineally organized. A model is almost always an oversimplified map consisting of a few, primary variables that will be tracked, measured, and perhaps controlled for experimentation. A model is used to create various hypotheses, which can be used to test in a laboratory study, or which can be used for explanatory purposes in a case study. There has been a debate over the validity of casual, linear models in the social sciences (e.g. are they even possible due to the epistemological problem of the generalization of human behavior), but models are generally straightforwardly accepted as an important methodological tool in the physical sciences. If your working in the social sciences, I would reference Pierre Bourdieu's practice theory and Anthony Gidden's theory of structuration.
Theory in general as defined by Kerlinger (1986) “ is a set of interrelated constructs
(concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting
phenomena.” (p. 9). Behaviorism, Progressivism, Developmentalism and ... are some theories in education. Models are practical guidance for realization theories. for example Ralf Tyler Model in the context of Behaviourism or Hilda Tabba. Strategies can be viewed as a set of techniques and procedures in models.
It depends on which way of meaning you use "model". What I understood from your question is the model definition which is mostly used instead of theory. As a mathematics educator, it's the easiest way for me to explain it by using sets. A theory, for example a learning or teaching theory, represents the most general way of the field you focus on. A subset of theory, let's put model. A model is the way to make implementation (for example 5E Model) with respect to theory you adopt. Then comes strategy to answer "what am i supposed to do?, how can i provide -for instance- better understanding. Finally techniques, which helps you to put forward your strategy.
Strategy is A plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. A theoretical model on the other hand gives an abstract description of a given system. Depending on the requirement a model may highlight one single aspect of the system and hide the other details. A model normally contains enough formalism such that it is not ambiguous. Because of this property theoretical experiments can be designed to estimate the performance of the system in different environments. Given a good theoretical model I believe the performance of a strategy can also be evaluated.
I think model here is an abstraction of the underlying situation. It is a schema and strategy is a plan of action or a set of procedure. Model could be a theoretical construct and attempts to capture the essence of underlying situation.
The concept of model has a socio-discursive component, for a theory to be considered as a model, its author must be an author-auctor , that is to say, he must have some legitimacy (real o assumed). In addition, a “model” implies the possibility of explanation, imitation and distortion. In short, I think the concept of “model” is inseparable from the notions of discursive ethos and author’s image. I hope these papers can help you: http://aad.revues.org/656
A particular strategy might be represented graphically as a model ... & it might represent a systems view, or a functional view, or simply depict a set of relationships, but it will all depend on the scope & detail of the theory. For me, a model is most often a sense-making device that is used to represent a more detailed textual explanation.
A behavior of a model of any system should be a subset of the behavior of the original system. Both spatial and temporal scaling are allowed.
The term model has been used and abused. However, I find it useful to use it in the following way. Theories are general descriptions of structure. Models are descriptions of structure in a particular context. In other words models are models of something. Structure is the perception of connections between things. From this perspective, experiments test models not theories. If you have a theory of strategies then your particular strategy could be considered a model. All that is required is to identify the structures connecting the various aspects of your strategy.
Thank you everyone for your feedback so far. I have found, like Rob Macduff mentioned, that the term model has been a bit overused and abused. At what would you consider the requirement to test a strategy in order for it to be a model?
I am not sure that anyone has developed theories of strategies. So I suspect that you are treading on new ground here.
Suppose that I have a theory that in order to build the concept D, I first must build the concepts A, B and C. This order is necessary because B requires A and C requires B, etc. Let me give you an example. In order to build the concept of number you first need the idea of serial order and a set of symbols for expressing that order. Next you need the idea of cardinality which can't be done without serial order. Next you need the idea of measure which can't be built without A and B. Number, which is the ratio of measures, requires A, B, C. Since all steps require the same symbols, and all that is happening is that the meaning of the symbol is shifting. It should be possible to create a test for A, B, C and D type understanding. I suspect that one might find that most will have A, B and C and only a few with D. By examining the strategies or models used for number construction, you might find flaws in those strategies that do not develop the full concept of number.
The test mentioned would be evaluating the model not the theory nor whether or not the strategy is a model. Determining if the strategy is a model would require determining if there are linkages as without linkages there is no structure. Thus no model.
thanks for the provocative questions but please keep in mind that this example is purely theoretical.
This of course depends if it is model that you are suggesting to test or it as a model that has been suggested by others.
Assuming you are intentions to suggest a new model, you should describe it as a Hypothesis. We use similar approaches in quantitative researches, especially with Facet Theory and SEM (Structural Equation Models using Amos). The model is described as mapping sentence (FT-Facet Theory) or a hypothesis drawing.
When you describe a theoretical model you do not have to actually describe any kind of statistical approach, only your assumptions based on the literature presented in your theoretical work.
@Rob Macduff
In terms of function definition can we say that
Theory Function profile
Model semantics definition
Strategy implementation method
I think Henry Mintzberg has done a lot of work on the theorisation of strategies...
Model and strategy are clearly two different things. What are you looking at model or strategy?
Typically addressing an education research issue with a premise to obtain certain outcomes is a strategic issue. On the other hand if one can provide theoretical form such that it connects the various elements / constructs to give a shape that grounds on say a philosophical level, such an initiative graduates to be a model.
We cannot “precisely” define the “model” in any contest, thus in the context of theoretical research. Below are listed some of possible definitions
1) A scientific model represents objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a consistent and logical way.
(perfectly expressed educational definition)
2) Model is the only way to approach to reality!
(Icarus model were wings perfectly made by his father. However, „Icarus ignored his father's instructions not to fly too close to the Sun; when the wax in his wings melted he tumbled out of the sky and fell into the sea where he drowned” )
3) Model is the only way to simulate a reality!
a) How we see the object of interest?
b) How to make proper approximations?
c) Mathematical problems
d) Scalling problems
(more elaborated definition one)
However, we have to have in mind that theory is always complex than any of its formalization, or equivalently said, that formalization, governed by syntactic alone, are simpler than theory (from Rosen and his reasoning about the Number Theory).
.
A model typifies the representation of a sub-set of a structure and majorly explicable in the context of research interest or item to be examined to aid arrival at logical scientific conclusion. A theory attempts to provide the all encompassing fact about specified scientific phenomenon with a universal view of coverage. Strategy is drawn out plan to approach, execute and arrive at a solution to scientific problem.
A strategy consists of any form of construct (either currently in operation or configured to solve future social problems) or a medium couched towards realizing a goal or at best arrive at a desired state. Depending on the research goal in view, it quite possible to test a strategy from the spectrum of other existing strategies. What is compared within the context of other strategies thus present a unique model which either establishes an affinity or otherwise in the realm of social research. I want to subtly disagree with my respected colleague that testing of a strategy cannot give a model. First and foremost, one should rarely know that a strategy is an amalgam of rudimentary ideas, consciously put together to chat a course of action. Such an idea may not be within the existing corpus of scientific knowledge and thereby assuming its uniqueness for scientific progress. Such uniqueness confers on the new strategy the status of a model.
strategy and model are two distinct constructs. I doubt whether there is any corelation between them. strategy for research is a plan to conduct the research whereas a model can be conceptualized to conduct the research or it can be an output of the research. The formalized and proven model can be considered as a proposition. However, if the same model is outcome of various research, it may constitute a theory as it becomes both generalizable and predictable.
Strategy is a way of DOING something. Model is a way of UNDERSTANDING something.
A model is an explanation that explains the observed facts, with as little complication as possible (i.e. the most simple explanation). A strategy is how we ACT based on that understanding.
Well said Michael.
However, model can both be an explanation as well as a premise on which the research is based.
To possess a strategy means to follow a certain path in order to achieve an optimal result, whereby on the one hand there is the will to enforce a certain action, but also to be flexible in order to minimize resistances, which constitute special meaning of the term.
Model is a collective term that expresses different things in European languages. In German, one would always distinguish between "Vorbild " (personal ideal) und "Modell"; in English, on the other hand, the personal image is subsumed under "model" - or one takes other terms such as "type" or "standard". But they don't meet the point.
I strongly believe that strategy and model are two distinct constructs. Your strategy for research is the canvas on which you do painting (operationalize the research). Models are of different hue. They could be both input for the research or output of the research.
Hi CohenMiller
You can understand - what is strategy in the context of research - from Saunder's Research Onion. I would recommend you to read 'Peeling Saunder's Research Onion.'
CohenMiller: I would be very interested in your summary of all the answers that you now have. I really think some of them are very profound, but some are very simple, so What is your response now that 33 answers have been given??
@
Hi Hi CohenMiller
Can you elaborate what you mean by theoretical research?
Hello everyone ... it is a fruitful discussion going around the question posed by A. S. CohenMiller .... though my interest is positivist or quantitative way of doing research .... Can you guide me about the role of Theory or Model in Descriptive / Interpretivist / Qualitative research? What is the starting point in a Qualitative Research?
Rehards
Strategy is not only a plan of action but it also encompasses implementation of the plan as well. Strategy in research is a plan giving details of the research process to achieve research goals. In the process, researcher may work out a model to do the research or can depict the outcome of the research in a model.
A model is a mental picture of the interrelationships of variables in a study. It's presented in a diagram or mathematical formula. It's usually accompanied by a written description/ explanation.
True, a model is a a mental picture of the interrelationships of variables to be studied but it can also be an outcome of the study (framework or a model), especially in qualitative research.
Paul said: “I agree a model can be an outcome of a study.”
My question is “In which sense?” I'm thinking in the following ways:
1) Formally, model is always an outcome of a study. Maybe the better combination of words is “model is designed” (not always in engineering context). Therefore, we always
have to study either phenomenon or object to design a model
2) The model is our view on the world. For example, Newtonian physics is one of models how we “see” the reality (i.e., theory). In that sense a model is outcome of our study the reality
and
3) If interpretation I happens to make S something true then we say that I is a MODEL of S.
Dear Arunaditya Sahay and Paul Maithya,
Can you guide me please on the fundamental differences between a Research Model and a Theory? Please take this question specifically for Qualitative Research Perspective. Thanks.
Best Regards
Research Model is a plan for conducting research whereas theory/proposition is an outcome of research. Quantitative research, generally, work out a model based on which the researcher proceeds. The outcome is either approval or rejection of the hypothesis. Qualitative research, especially grounded theory, starts with a clean slate and based on the data collection and analysis, it postulates a theory.
There can be both types of model; the input model and the output model. The type of model suited to your research depends upon your ontology ang logic.
Model can mean so many things. The point here is to be more specific as to which specific field you may be relating to. Theory does not hold much weight compared to a model as it is tested. This standpoint is from research.
Strategy come are borrowed from military in education if some problem arise than you have to make a strategy to solve it even on the spot. And yes Model may be the input or out put of the research. When you are making some sort of research like you want to conduct an experiential research you may apply a model to perform the experiment on the basis of which hypothesis may be accepted or rejected. You may study for model detail Khan(2011) PhD thesis in which they apply a model to conduct the experiment.
@ to mention people
1) The model defined epistemologically
Chapter 1
Prolegomena
This book represents a continuation, an elaboration, and possibly a clear explanation of ideas that is expounded in previous book Time and Methods in Environmental Interfaces Modeling (henceforth abbreviated as TM). In that book and in whole our published scientific work we either implicitly or explicitly were driven by a need to understand how the “space” between the human mind and observed physical reality is bridged? Here, the terms physical reality and reality we use synonymously since the reality is all of physical existence, as opposed to that which is merely imaginary. This word is also used in a declination speaking about parts of reality that include the cognitive idea of an individual "reality" (psychology). Is a model that bridge? Therefore, in the focus of this book, we set the question: “What is the model?”. Although we stand at the point of view that the model is the way how we see the physical reality, a broad elaboration for establishing such an attitude is needed. In the pursuit of a suitable description of such a bridge, we have encountered problems related to ontology and epistemology. There are not many books that systematically deal with these problems. Among the few books dedicated to these problems in physics is the book Essay about physical reality written by a Serbian theoretical physicist and academician Zvonko Marić (1931-2006) (Maraić, 1986). It was some kind of guidebook in our thoughts (book “Physics as the science of the possible: Discovery in the age of Goedel “ - in preparation ).
2) from the book “Time and methods in environmental interfaces modeling “ by Mihailovic et al. (2016), Elsevier
The systems which we face in modeling the processes on environmental interfaces can be grouped into three categories, i.e. simple, complicated and complex ones. As a metaphorical illustration (see att.)of structures of these problems, we will give three examples originating from Brenda Zimmermane (2014), an expert for strategic management. Her examples in a simple but essential way to illustrate the structure of the above problems.
Figure 5.1 Types of problems that we face in modeling the processes on environmental interfaces (Zimmerman, 2014). - see attachment
Looking at the above panels in Fig. 5.1 (left panel) we can see that for making soup we need just the right recipe that is enough to get the same results every time, therefore, they are entitled as simple. In complicated problems, like sending the rocket to the Moon (Fig. 5.1 - middle panel), we have to invest much more effort into solving that problem (although the comparison with the making soup may be grotesque, it must be admitted that it is deeply obvious). Despite the fact that we have all the tools, it does not guarantee that we will be successful in our efforts. To reach the target, we have to build our experience over time and then it can be repeated with success. Finally, let us consider the complex problem through analysis of the rising child (Fig. 5.1 – right panel). Firstly, we have no “right” recipes or protocols, i.e., a set of instructions for recognizing a particular direction we have to follow, including a list of the steps required. Secondly, we have no experience (every child is a special experience regardless of whether the first or succeeding) thus only outside factors influence our experience. It helps but it does not guarantee “solving the problem”, i.e., success in this case.
Whereas this book is intended for a wide audience of engineers and scientists, who start from different attitudes and approaches in their work, right now at the beginning of this part of the book and having in mind examples in Fig. 5.1, we will make a distinction between the notion “complicated” and “complex“. When we say that something is “complicated”, it obviously means that there exists a spectrum of complications but we understand what context that would describe. Complicated matter cannot be broken down into simple parts, for it is made of complicated parts. It is evincive of something that is problematic, long-winded, difficult and inconsistent. Complicated usually have to execute with taking time, subsistence hard, or has a lot of limitary factors. Therefore, sending the rocket to the Moon is a good example of a complicated problem. On the other hand, the complex problems and systems result from networks of multiple interacting causes that cannot be individually distinguished; they must be addressed as entire systems, that is they cannot be addressed in a piecemeal way (Poli, 2013). That kind of problems and systems cannot be controlled like complicated ones since we know in advance that there is no warranty for success. The best one can do is to have an effect on them, learn to “dance with them”, as Donella Meadows ably said (Meadows, 2008). At the end of the story about the types of problems and systems in environmental modeling let us add the following comments. This question is closely related to the question of whether the information we are receiving about the system obeys the same evolution through randomness and determinism, independently of context. “So can a combination of randomness and determinism produce all information and everything else we see around us? It seems that randomness and determinism together can be seen to underlie every aspect of reality” (Verdal, 2010).
3) People mostly deal with heuristic models (”A heuristic technique, often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem-solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals.” Sometimes this kind of approach can support the wrong background but giving a ”good” results.
@Dragutin. This is just one type of model. There could be models expressed from various numerical equations as well.
Arunaditya Sahay
I do not agree. Maybe, my interpretation of the model was done confusingly? However, this is the most purely mathematical interpretation which is independent on the way you choose in the modeling procedure. There exists different levels of sophistication in the designing the model. For example, The Category Theory as the most general theory of modeling (See Rosen (1991)). You mentioned the approach which less sophisticated –i.e. heuristic. A heuristic technique is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect or rational, but which is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. In addition it can be mentioned that use of ODF or PDF equation in continuous or finite difference form could be “dangerous” because they include many latent assumptions making obstacles in modeling procedure. Therefore, the model approach you mentioned is less sophisticated and purely heuristic (it is a subset of the most general defined model not contrary).
@CohenMiller. To me strategy and model are two distinctly different concepts. Strategy is the total process of research design whereas a theoretical model can be developed for studying the variables that researcher wants to.
@all mentioned people
This is still a story about heuristic models. However, it is just a part of the model theory. I think that this comment is related to simple or complicated processes, not complex ones. Also, my opinion that the syntagm "theoretical model" is often used in the wrong way. I think that this syntagm is just a metaphor.
Theoretical model can be defined as a theory that is developed to explain a situation or a phenomenon and further, to be able to forecast it. While strategic theory is the study of correlations between ends and means, including the use, or threat of use, of armed force as a conscious choice of political actors who are intent on rationally pursuing their objectives.
https://research-essay.com/what-is-a-theoretical-model
I have ve been working on a book for a long time having a tentative title “Walking the Physics’ Narrow Path in this Century: Short Essays about our Experience”. I am a physicist with a modest education in philosophy. Therefore, I have invested a lot of time reading papers from the philosophy of science. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact how many scientists in the field of philosophy of science are versed in physics (though philosophy itself is not a science since it has a special status). They are versed much more in physics than physicists in the philosophy of science. That is my impression. Those papers helped me to structurally define the following chapters
Chapter 1
Ontology of Physics
Chapter 2
Gedele’s theorem and Physics
Chapter 3
Model as a Pattern in Dialectics of Ontologically Problematic Entities in Physics,
which are crucial for the book and further consideration. In writing the book pages (except Chapter 2) the keystone paper was the paper by Gustav Bergman: “Physics and ontology”, Philosophy Science, 28,1 (January 1961). In this paper, clearly and smoothly written, the author explains the term “model pattern”. In abstract hi said (mentioning the meaning of term model)
“The recent philosophy of physics is confronted with the new ontology, as it emerges after philosophy proper has fully articulated the linguistic turn. The classical ontologists asserted or denied, controversially, that certain entities "existed." Rather than adding to these controversies, the new ontology uncovers their dialectics. The ontologically problematic entities of physics are of two kinds, represented by forces and particles, respectively. The dialectics has been dominated by eight patterns. Two of these, independence and realism, belong to philosophy proper. The latter is here considered in order to relieve the philosophy of physics of a burden only philosophy proper can bear. That leaves six patterns: concreteness (including the orbit feature), acquaintance, simplicity, significance, process, and model. The paper sketches how each of these may be used and probably has been used, either explicitly or implicitly, in the recent controversies.”
He also said: “Let us first look at the negative side in the dialectic of the classical particle. The entities of the model do not exist. This is the formula of the model pattern. It underlies much that has been said on the negative side. To understand it, one must understand this use of 'model'. To understand this use, one must attend to a characteristic feature of all particles, classical as well as modern. In describing the feature I shall without further explanation speaks of two languages and of translations from one into the other. No harm will be done and much breath will be saved.”
Other details about the “model” you can find in the paper, which available on some internet pages.
What is the message of this text? To point out on “ontological” meaning of term model (the meaning of the term model from the mathematical standpoint I elaborated in Answers on January 7th this year).
I think there is need to harmonise our understanding of the meaning of terminologies like 'model' , 'framework', as well as 'methodology', 'method',...not forgetting 'design','strategy', 'approach'...and such other terminologies that are commonly interchangeably applied in research. I am forced to think that the meaning of each one of these terminologies ought to be relative to the discipline in question, since a unified agreement on the meaning and implication of each one these ''confusing'' terminologies is probably absent.
Philosophy and physics are certainly inter related. Philosophy came first, physics later. Philosophy is the fountain head of all research, be it physical sciences, life sciences or social sciences or even art and literature.
A model is an abstract representation of a system or pheromone, which could be physical, an artifact or mathematical function. While a strategy is well laid down plan (processes) used to achieve a specified objective.
A model is simply a statistical representation of a theory. So in a theoretical research, a model can be displayed to explain the components of the theory (variables) in order to expand the idea of the theory. Thus, we can study a theory with the aid of a model in order to understand how the variables interrelate such that once a variable is altered, the model changes because the error term is altered. Eventually, a new theory can be postulated from such changes.
For me, a model is any visual representation of how components connect or influence each other. Therefore there could be a wide range of formats for them. A model is either a proposal or actually "how something works". In some instances there are working (mechanical) models as well. So context matters when we use terms like "model", and perhaps we should be considering descriptors to go with the word model such as "proposed", "theoretical", "operational", "evidence-based" etc. to clarify what kind of model it is.
Connor is right. Proposed theory should either help clarification of existing theory in a given context or addition to existing theory.
A strategy is a design plan while model is representation that show relationship between variables.
A model - way of representation the relation btn different variables
Strategy - plan - how to undergo the process to achieve a certain goal
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity