Design and Elaboration of the Conceptual System of Theory: Rethinking the Concept of Theory in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Gholamreza Heidari

Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge & Information Science, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

10.22067/infosci.2026.99105.1282

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction
Theory is a foundational concept for organizing, explaining, interpreting, critiquing, and advancing scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, its meaning remains characterized by considerable conceptual plurality and sustained debate. This situation can be attributed, in part, to the persistence of a traditional model of definition rooted in essentialist reasoning, whereby concepts are defined in terms of necessary features and relatively fixed boundaries. This model has also been reinforced in modern scholarship by approaches derived from the natural and empirical sciences. However, such an approach does not always adequately capture complex and plural phenomena, particularly those encountered in the humanities and social sciences, and has contributed to dichotomies such as theory/practice, product/process, and abstract/applied. In contrast, developments in the humanities and social sciences have fostered alternative modes of conceptualization that, rather than reducing phenomena to a fixed essence, emphasize multidimensionality, contextuality, gradation, dynamism, and the interrelationships among their constituent dimensions. From this perspective, the problem addressed by the present study is not merely the absence of a universally accepted definition of theory or the plurality of existing definitions, but rather the need to reconsider the underlying logic through which theory is defined and conceptualized. Accordingly, this study seeks to develop a new understanding of theory and, on this basis, to construct a Conceptual System of Theory (CST) grounded in this emerging logic.
Methodology
The study employed a conceptual analysis approach combined with theoretical synthesis. Relevant literature on the concept of theory in the philosophy of science, research methodology, and the humanities and social sciences was systematically examined. Definitions, components, functions, and modes of conceptualizing theory were identified, extracted, and comparatively analyzed. The analysis indicated that a substantial part of the conceptual debate surrounding theory derives from positioning it within relatively closed dichotomies. To address this limitation, the study adopted a “third perspective” that moves beyond selecting one pole over another and instead conceptualizes their coexistence and continuity within a spectral, multilayered, contextual, and dynamic framework. On this basis, the concept of theory was formulated at three semantic levels. The specific level refers to the narrower and more determinate meaning of theory; the general level refers to systematic knowledge aimed at understanding, interpreting, explaining, or critiquing phenomena; and the broad level encompasses the wider domain of theoretical knowledge, together with its conceptual and paradigmatic foundations. These three levels were subsequently examined through seven analytical approaches: lexical-conceptual, subject-heading-oriented, spectral, disciplinary, methodological, typological, and question-based. Finally, the findings generated through these analytical approaches were integrated through a process of conceptual synthesis, resulting in the design and elaboration of the Conceptual System of Theory (CST).
Findings
The findings indicate that theory cannot be adequately represented by a fixed, essentialist definition and that its understanding requires recognition of its multiple levels, dimensions, and forms. The third perspective facilitates a move beyond reductive dichotomies, enabling theory to be understood simultaneously as both product and process, as both abstract and contextual, and as encompassing explanatory, interpretive, critical, and normative functions. This perspective provided the conceptual basis for reformulating theory across the three semantic levels.
At the subsequent stage, the seven analytical approaches enabled a systematic elaboration of these three semantic levels. The lexical-conceptual approach focuses on the meaning and connotations of theory; the subject-heading-oriented approach identifies its constituent components and conceptual boundaries; the spectral approach reveals varying degrees of abstraction and generalization; the disciplinary approach incorporates differences in disciplinary requirements into the conceptualization of theory; the methodological approach examines how theories are formulated, developed, evaluated, and revised; the typological approach distinguishes among the diverse forms and functions of theory; and the question-based approach organizes theory in relation to fundamental problems and questions. The synthesis of the three semantic levels and seven analytical approaches resulted in the formulation of seven interconnected dimensions that constitute the architecture of the CST: Meaning, Scope, Level, Context, Process, Type, and Coherence. Meaning specifies the conceptual identity of theory; Scope delineates its boundaries and extent; Level indicates its degree of abstraction and generalization; Context encompasses the historical, disciplinary, epistemic, and problem-related conditions within which theory emerges and operates; Process addresses its formation, transformation, revision, and evaluation; Type captures its diverse forms and functions; and Coherence represents the internal continuity and integration of its constituent components. These dimensions should not be understood as discrete categories but as interrelated elements of a unified conceptual system.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings indicate that the problem of theory cannot be resolved simply by adding another definition, because the underlying logic of definition itself has evolved in response to the increasing complexity of phenomena. Within this emerging logic, definition does not necessarily entail determining the fixed essence and closed boundaries of a phenomenon; rather, it may involve the coherent formulation of a set of major dimensions through which a phenomenon can be represented within a reasonable, multilayered, and context-sensitive scope. From this perspective, the three semantic levels and seven analytical approaches make it possible to examine and conceptualize theory across its multiple dimensions without reducing it to a single definitional model. The seven dimensions emerging from their synthesis provide the foundation for a system through which theory can be described, compared, analyzed, evaluated, and further developed. Accordingly, the CST can be understood as a systematic formulation of a new logic for conceptualizing theory—one that is better aligned with the complexity, plurality, and contextual variability of theory in the humanities and social sciences.
Originality
The originality of the study lies in shifting the problem of theory from “finding the correct definition” to “rethinking the logic of definition and conceptualization.” Within this framework, the “third perspective” provides a way to move beyond reductive dichotomies; the three semantic levels reveal the different scopes of the concept of theory; the seven analytical approaches elaborate these levels from complementary perspectives; and their synthesis leads to seven dimensions and ultimately to the architecture of the CST. The principal innovation therefore lies not in any one of these elements separately, but in the systematic relationship among them and the transformation of this relationship into an integrated conceptual system. The CST provides an open and expandable framework for analyzing, comparing, evaluating, teaching, and developing theories, and exemplifies an approach to definition that emphasizes multidimensionality, contextuality, spectrality, and coherence rather than essentialist boundary-setting.

Keywords

Theory

Necessities of Theorization

Iran

Conceptual System

Social Sciences and Humanities

Major Approaches to the Concept of Theory

Subjects

• Information Science Foundations

---

References

Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological theory, 26(2), 173-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x
Bagheri, K. (2010). Barriers to theorizing in the humanities. Paper presented at the Conference on Barriers and the Process of Theorizing in the Humanities, Hamedan. [In Persian].
Bates, M. J. (2009). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. Library and information science, 4 (44), 275 - 297. 
Collier, D., Daniel Hidalgo, F., & Olivia Maciuceanu, A. (2006). Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of political ideologies, 11(3), 211-246. DOI: 10.1080/13569310600923782
Danaeefard, H. (2010). Theorizing: Foundations and methodologies. Tehran: Samt Publications. [In Persian].
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building free press. London, United Kingdom, 85. 
Fattahi, R. (2025). Conceptual Research: What It Is, Why It Is, and Explaining Its Value. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 41(2), 313-322. doi: 10.22034/jipm.2025.734304. [In Persian].
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge: Pantheon Books.
Freund, J. (1983). Opinions and theories in the humanities. Tehran: University Publication Center.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science: University of Chicago Press.
Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts: A user's guide: Princeton University Press.
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems1. MIS quarterly, 30(3), 611-642. DOI: 10.2307/25148742. 
Heidari, G., & Ghanadinezhad, F. (2018). Scientific Growth: Concepts, Theories and Patterns. Rahyaft, 28(71), 1-18. Retrieved from https://rahyaft.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13668_91ff28b80e445a65c4f61fb05aecfd03.pdf. [In Persian].
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Laws and their role in scientific explanation. Philosophy of natural science, 47-69. 
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS review, 10(1), 18-26. DOI: 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Kaab Omeir, F., & Heidari, G. (2019). A Review of the Bibliographic Approach to Defining Theory. Knowledge Retrieval and Semantic Systems, 6(20), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.22054/jks.2019.45048.1242. [In Persian].
Kerlinger, F. N. (1966). Foundations of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York.
Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International journal of operations & production management, 13(5), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579310028120
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster.
Pakseresht, M. (2006). Educational theories and theory-making challenges in Iranian education system. Journal of Educational Innovations, 6(2), 125-148. Retrieved from https://noavaryedu.oerp.ir/article_78826_7d21bbfa846801f35e39fdaf43e41f34.pdf. [In Persian].
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery.
Pour Ezzat , A., Rezaeei, P.,  Reza Yazdani, H. (2009). Survey of Theory-building Barriers in Social Sciences Area. Journal of Business Management, 1(2), -. Retrieved from https://jibm.ut.ac.ir/article_20323_0b6b2c2092fa735afd2b9b1da3d5db43.pdf. [In Persian].
Rahadoust, F. (2005). Theoretical issues in library and information science. Tehran: Ketabdar. [In Persian].
Samadi, H. (2011). The structure of scientific theories in natural and social sciences. Tehran: Research Institute of Hawzah and University. [In Persian].
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American political science review, 64(4), 1033-1053. DOI:10.2307/1958356.
Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard Jr, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2003). How to build social science theories. Sage publications.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly, 371-384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788.
Swedberg, R. (2014). The art of social theory. Princeton University Press.
Szostak, R. (2004). Classifying science: Phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Springer.
Tavassoli, G. (2008). Sociological theories. Tehran: Samt Publications. [In Persian].
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative science quarterly, 40(3), 385-390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of management review, 14(4), 490-495. DOI: 10.2307/258554.
Yousof Boroujerdi, R., & Davarpanah, S. H. (2024). An Exploration of the Professional-Cognitive Barriers to Theorizing Among Faculty Members in the Humanities. Iranian Higher Education, 16(2), 66-90. DOI:  20.1001.1.20088000.1403.16.2.4.1. [In Persian].