Using Integrative Propositional Analysis to Understand and Integrate Four Theories of Social Power Systems
( Wallis , 2016 ). Few seem willing or able to work to reverse the trend and re-integrate theories — perhaps due to a lack of tools ( Wallis , 2014b , 2014d ).
In response to the challenges of discipline fragmentation and our collective inability to objectively improve theories , IPA was developed to fill a gap of how theories are created , improved , and applied ( Wallis , 2008b ). IPA has been used to clarify the core ( interconnected concepts ) and belt ( disconnected concepts ) of theories integrating theories to work against fragmentation within and between disciplines including psychology sociology entrepreneurship and policy ( Wallis , 2009b , 2014b , 2014d , 2015a , 2015b , 2016 ; Wallis , Wright , & Nash , 2016 ; Wright & Wallis , 2015 ). This path is expected to develop
1.2 How to Apply and Use IPA ?
Theories are evaluated along two dimensions of structural complexity : their “ simple ” Complexity ( the number of concepts contained in the theory ) and Systemicity ( a measure of causal interconnectedness between the concepts ). For example , a bullet point list of concepts would have a Systemicity of zero , while a physics formula ( such as Ohm ’ s law of electricity or Newton ’ s laws of motion ), where each concept is causally connected with the others so that the entire conceptual system is amenable to algebraic manipulation , would have a Systemicity of one .
There appears to be some relationship between the Systemicity of the theory and the usefulness of the theory in practical application for achieving individual and organizational goals . Theories with a higher Systemicity ( such as laws of physics ) are likely to be “ better ” ( more useful for understanding and engaging the world to generate planned change to reach goals ) than theories with a lower Systemicity ( such as theories of the social sciences ). Additionally , building better models / theories is important for educating students and communicating to diverse stakeholders ( Howick , Eden , Ackermann , & Williams , 2008 ).
The IPA scores ( Complexity and Systemicity ) of any theory of social power systems do not indicate the quality or desirability of that system . Instead , the score indicates how well the theory represents the system . With a higher IPA scores , researchers and policymakers can use improved theory to better understand , engage , and change our social systems . Similarly , practitioners can better conduct strategic planning and make more effective decisions to maximize their sustainability .
For the purpose of this analysis , social power systems include totalitarian systems ( e . g . the former Soviet Union ), bureaucratic systems ( as commonly applied to manage governments around the world ), “ command and control ” management in business settings ( e . g . post Taylor management theory and practice ), and Deming ’ s more enlightened management system . For a more detailed description with more examples , please see Fink ( 2017 ).
179