What is I-O?

It has been said that the more things change the more they stay the same. Despite advances in our profession over the past 50 years with regard to measurement, our capacity to generate useful theories is stagnant. In fact, the way we arrange our boxes, circles, and arrows today is no better or more advanced than when Truman was president. If you dont believe me, thumb through one of our esteemed journals from around 1950. On the theoretical front, you will quickly and correctly conclude that not much has changed over the past half century. But its not like we arent aware of our own ineptitude. It has become de rigueur for us to make impassioned pleas for theory development in our field. These are more than isolated pleas, however. In truth, if there is a singular lament that we love to evince it is the plaintive whine for theory construction. The problem is, as Mark Twain once observed with regard to the weather, while we all talk about it, nobody does anything about it. Up until now. A theory is nothing more than a way to think about something. Ms. Stewart and I are kindred spirits because we are both frequent contributors to major publications. We share the same psychic vibes. I envision her giving the following advice on theory construction.... I contacted Ms. Stewart at her home on the windswept craggy coastline of Maine. She graciously consented to give us some of her time and wisdom. Ladies and gentlemen, as a professional service to SIOP as brought to you by TIP, The High Society offers you theory construction a la Martha Stewart. 

***

I believe it is always best to start off with the freshest ingredients and to prepare them properly. First, lay out your axioms, postulates, and tenets. Cluster them by type and position them against a suitable contextual gradient. For this I prefer a checkered damask or a striped organdy. Next, slice the corollaries on the diagonal near their epistemological roots. Then spritz them with essence of lavender. However, do not oversaturate the corollaries as their roots have a wicking effect which cause them to bloat, which invariably leads to increased error variance. Parboil the axioms, postulates, and tenets until tender, yet still firm. Allow to cool, then carefully trim off any surplus meaning. For this procedure I prefer to use Occams razor. Now weave the corollaries into a tight pattern using grosgrain twill. However, do not create the appearance of a tussie mussie bouquet. You are now ready to begin the ideation process.

I recommend no more than three constructs per theory. Each construct should be fully trussed. It is advisable to wear latex gloves during this process to avoid possible criterion contamination. Now position each concept to create an inferential etagere. Imbed each concept into its respective construct using either breast darts or freeform pin-tucking. Insert a brochette of postulates into the folded pocket of each concept. Molar concepts can be truncated by selective application of a mandoline grater. However, molecular concepts are best left as is, provided they have first been made parsimonious by placement in a cache pot lightly tousled with Malaysian bay leaves.

It is not always easy to position dependent, intervening, and independent variables. However, your skill will increase with practice. I prefer to secure the independent and dependent variables with a blind hem. Intervening variables can be slippery and evasive. For that reason I solidify their location between the independent and dependent variables using a cable stitch. However, do not use unnecessarily small stitching which will cause the design to pucker. If puckering does occur, do not reposition the variables. Rather, the questionable inferential leaps can be cleverly concealed with rattan detailing. If your variables have scalloped edges, the concealment can be readily accomplished. However, if they have ruffled edges, a toile jabot should be used to produce an apparent seamless integration.

The decision to ideate inductively or deductively can be vexing, but is enhanced by first determining the type of finish your theory should have. If you prefer a crackled-glaze finish, the clear choice is to induce. However, if a caf-au-lait finish is preferred, I would deduce. A good theory generates many testable predictions, so liberally sprig the theory with hypotheses. Next, decide if you want an idiographic or nomothetic boucle. Both have timeless charm. If you choose the idiographic, cover it with a swagged duvet for at least 24 hours. If you choose the nomothetic, wrap it tightly in a matelass, but for no more than 6 to 9 hours, depending on the level of specification error to be tolerated.

By now your theory should start to take form. I have often been asked what to do with those pesky moderator variables. My answer is that if your theory has already included intervening variables, adding moderator variables can only produce a confusing melange. Feel free to accessorize your operational definitions. Ive learned you can never have too many of them. If you prefer a more zestful theory, use either a balsamic or meta-analytic teleology. While theory construction is raptuous, you may discover you have created a cognitive montage which greatly surpasses your original intent. In such a case, do not discard the theory! Rather, carefully cleave the theory into a series of discrete models. Use reductionism for this process, but be careful not to fall victim to reductio ad absurdum. To achieve the final gestalt, garnish the theory with cream taffeta or sachet of juniper. The product of your efforts will be a fetching addition to metaphysics and will unlikely produce the dreaded null effect.

If you are a relative newcomer to theory construction, do not be dissuaded by a lack of validity generalization. Logical positivism is like the finest ganacheto be savored for but a brief period of time, only to be supplanted by the next quintessence. Theories are but means to an end and have no value in and of themselves. For in truth, the most exquisite artisans do not construct theories, per se, but rather are gifted in the creative process. Pity the antediluvian who is known not for sustained virtuosity, but for a singular creation produced long ago that has since become displeasing to the senses and has fallen from social favor! As such, become skilled not in the particular theories you construct but in the art of theorizing.