Theorizing

Information Systems (IS) and the process of distinguishing Information Systems ontology have been the center of challenge during the 50 years of IS development. The importance of this challenge is emergent in direct link between knowledge development process in IS and the IS ontology. In other words, theorizing and efforts to falsify theories, which have been developed, is influenced by the way IS ontology is approached. Critical realism enjoying the unique approach to the IS ontology based on transcendental realism and critical naturalism can be a useful basis to establish the transdisciplinary view in the process of IS knowledge development. This point of view is important regarding the role of human agent in different layers of the IS ontology as a result of its transcendental ontology. Critical realism develops human role during next stages of knowledge and the methodology development based on the transdisciplinary view to IS. The explanation of a transdisciplinary view to the IS ontology regarding the unique role of human agent in the process of theorizing and knowledge development in Information Systems is presented in this article.

Purpose: Relatively much research has been done into theorizing and its importance. However, the number of studies related to the understanding of contexts is very negligible and so far no framework has been provided including indicators and evaluation methods. This research has been done with the aim of achieving the indicators related to theorizing and subsequently presenting a formula to measure the potential and theorizing capacity of scientific institutes. Method: Library and field methods have been used to collect information. Data were first collected through a checklist and then through the AHP questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed among experts and the AHP method was used to analyze the data. Expert Choice software was used to analyze the data obtained from the AHP questionnaire. Findings: The results indicate that the individual index is 9 times more important than the non-individual index in the theorizing process. Pairwise comparison of individual sub-indices showed that "awareness of theorizing" and "research ability” have an equal portion in theorizing. The "coherence of personality traits" is sextuple as important as the "awareness of theorizing”. "Coherence of personality traits" up to sextuple "research ability" can be considered important in the theorizing process.  Pairwise comparison of non-individual index sub-indices showed that "communication level" is twice as important as "institutional index level". However, the “effect level" is twice as important as the "communication level". The "communication level" is 7 times more important than the "management index level". The "effect level" can be considered 7 times more important than the "institutional index level". "Institutional index level" is quadruple more important than "management index level". The "effect level" is extremely important compared to the "management index level". Conclusion: Although theorizing is done by a researcher or a group of researchers, ultimately, it is a collective matter, or at least, several components are involved in its formation. Theorizing is a coherent, dynamic, purposeful, and thoughtful practice whose results can lead researchers to recognize the credible generalizable relationship between causes and effects. Finally, the formula Tp= (0.9I + 0.1NI) was presented, which can be used to assess the capacity of theorizing in institutes.

The extensive training data of ChatGPT has facilitated theorizing in the field of Translation Studies, particularly during the cultural turn. Following this theorizing, a standardization framework was proposed. This study employed a qualitative and interdisciplinary approach, utilizing a descriptive method to interpret the data. The validated questions were based on the works of theorists associated with the cultural turn. Two scholars participated in structured and semi-structured interviews, employing a three-point Likert scale to capture their opinions on the proposed theory. Data analysis focused on the accuracy of ChatGPT-4’s responses in relation to the scholars’ opinions and references. The findings associated with the Likert scale were linked to task-oriented benchmarks, including factual/contextual understanding, coherence, and resolution of ambiguity. The results indicated a 29.3% weakness in ChatGPT-4’s data analysis. The resolution of ambiguity resulted in a total of neutral responses at 44.8%. Scholars unanimously endorsed the cultural interaction theory, demonstrating a 100% capacity for theorizing by ChatGPT-4. In terms of coherence and summarization, the data suggested a stronger correlation with prompt engineering. The potential for theorizing concerning existing theory was found to be 77.7%, while the standard of theorizing by ChatGPT-4 was assessed at 68.9%. Surah Al-Fatiha was selected to exemplify cultural translation according to CIT, illustrating the theory’s effectiveness in translating cultural-ideological texts. A comparison of ChatGPT-4’s translations with those of six Quranic translators underscored its synthesizing abilities, with the incorporation of cultural interaction theory into prompts significantly enhancing its translation skills.

The main question of the present research was theorizing controversies and their reason in educational administration studies. The search for the answer to this question was done by genealogical method. In the present thesis, an attempt was made to investigate the end and method of theorizing and its supposed reasons as the two main topics of discussion in this controversy, by Foucaultian genealogy. Following the search for the roots, this study led to the discovery of the sources of theorizing, including scientific power and governmentality, three conflicting discourses of theorizing, and two major ruptures in the theorizing process of educational administration studies. The discourses were identified and divided into three categories: “conventionalism”, “sanctification of science” and “evolution”, and the ruptures were categorized as “methodological rupture” and “teleological rupture”. According to the findings of this study, it can be concluded that educational administration studies are on the one hand considered by experts in the fields of education and social sciences, and on the other hand, are favored by politicians and rulers as a political tool for governments. Contrary to the claims of many competing theories, the emergence of theory in educational administration studies in its global origin has been a tool of political governance rather than seeking to achieve ideal goals such as awareness, welfare, educational justice, democracy, freedom and education. Following the expansion of colonial territories in the European and American governments, facing the huge population of colonized countries such as India and China and the ineffectiveness of previous models of governance, technological tools of discipline from authoritarian and force-based governance are changed to governance based on the education and training of individuals in accordance with the demands of the ruler systems. In other words, according to the conflicting discourses and double ruptures, theorizing in educational administration studies from Foucault’s point of view as a technology of discipline in the modern era, where it has followed political purposes, has had no advantage for this field of study, and every theory with a new claim has increased the ambiguity and confusion in its theoretical nature.