B i l l N i c h o l s : 2 – L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w … … … … … … … … … … … … . P a g e | 70
Third, presents a Competing or ‘Goodwill’ Model. 2.14.2 Critique of Convergence: The Case for Anti-Thesis The prior case for the Convergence Model exhibits (at least) four potential inadequacies: the nature of observation, complexity, instability and, finally, the application of natural language systems. Collectively they suggest a competing point of departure. First, empirically, the convergent metatriangulation thesis is founded almost exclusively on post-consumption observation data. Conversely PBS intra-consumption observation is the subject of rare prior investigation (e.g. Davies and Palihawadana 2006).
Accordingly the
nature and/or configuration of constructs may vary. Second, the seven-construct Convergence Model is complex and far from parsimony. Most predecessor studies configure far fewer constructs. As a principle, such complexity often generates disorder – in this case potentially overlapping domains - and, ultimately, analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy (Delavigne and Robertson 1994). Restated: in structural model language, in excessive degrees of freedom lies potential confusion. Third, to borrow from structuralism, while prior theory may support ‘surface’ order in the model, the deep structure may be inherently unstable and militate against a successful outcome (Althusser 1968). In the world of social scientific investigation: “instead of the domain of observables for any construct being tightly defined initially, more likely the nature of the domain will be suggested by numerous attempts to develop particular measures” (Nunnally 1978, p.99).
Amid such instability, to extend complexity by
reconceptualising one key construct is challenging. To accomplish it simultaneously with several may be supported empirically but only partly achievable. Fourth and finally, even implied surface order may be an illusion fostered by natural language labels. Such labels lack the “precision necessary for developing theoretically meaningful scientific concepts” (Hunt 1991; Teas and Palan 1997, p.52). Even limited validity is subject to erosion as indicators are amended, removed and replaced. “To speak a language is to commit ourselves to the double indeterminacy due to our reliance both on its formalism and on our own continued reconsideration of this formalism in its bearing on our
© Bill Nichols 2009