Process of Theory Mapping

f
The process may be summarized briefly as consisting of the following steps. For the 'Who shot JFK?' Theory Map that is referred to, download the zip file here, extract and open the html file.


Step 1: State the Research Question

This is the basic question that you want the theory to answer, and is put at the top of the map. This is necessary in order to determine which facts need to be collected.

In the case of JFK, the Research Question would be ‘Who killed JFK?’

Theory Mapping is currently only designed to deal with factual questions rather than questions regarding values or decisions. See Theory Mapping and World Views for a discussion about the implications of this.


Step 2: Collection of Facts

In their most raw form, facts are publicly verifiable observations. A list of the facts relevant to answering the Research Question is drawn up in a table, including a statement of the fact, a summary title, and the source. These facts may be called Agreed Facts. The process for compiling them depends upon the mode of application of Theory Mapping – Debate or Competition.

So for the JFK case, the Agreed Facts would include the different pieces of physical evidence (e.g. bullet CE399 and the bullet fragments) that can be viewed in person and are available for analysis, or the recorded statements of witnesses that can be read by anyone in the official reports or interviews by journalists, or the reports of experts who have done analysis of the bullets. No one can dispute these, since they can be publicly verified. For the initial draft table of the Agreed Facts for the JFK case, click on the link within the Situation box of the JFK Map.

How these facts are interpreted is completely theory dependent. For instance, some JFK conspiracists believe that the physical evidence has been tampered with or fabricated by the authorities. But it is still a fact that this evidence exists.


Step 3: Draft Theory Map to fit the facts

The core answer of the theory to the Research Question is summarized in a box (or boxes) under the question. This hypothesis must then be justified using logical arguments presented as Argument Maps. The arguments given must ultimately be grounded in either the Agreed Facts (from Step 2), or in other publicly verifiable facts that are not directly related to the research question, which we will call Background Facts. Each competing theory is likely to draw on different Agreed Facts to support their case, but what is needed is a theory that can fit all of the facts. Theory Mapping therefore forces each theory to include explanations of any Agreed Facts that are used to support rival theories but are not used in the justification of its own core hypothesis. These explanations must themselves be logically justified and grounded in facts, and be consistent with the rest of the theory.

For the JFK case, an example Theory Map has been drawn for the Lone Gunman Theory using bCisive argument mapping software. This is very much in draft form and is for illustrative purposes only. The core hypothesis of the Lone Gunman Theory is ‘Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone from 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)’. This is then justified by various reasons, generally ending with facts about the case (which correspond to the Agreed Facts table - only the title of the fact is given on the map, so look at the Excel table for the details).

If we assume that there is one competing theory called Conspiracy Theory 1, the map for the Lone Gunman Theory includes a reason that “Facts presented as evidence for Conspiracy Theory 1 can be coherently explained away”. Underneath this, each of the facts given in support of a conspiracy is presented, followed by an explanation with reasons. For instance, the fact that the Warren Commission did not adequately investigate the possibility of a conspiracy may be explained as due to shortage of time and the desire of President Johnson to avoid public pressure to go to war with Cuba or Russia in retaliation for JFK’s death, rather than as due to the need to cover up a conspiracy.



Step 4: Measurement of coherence

The final key step is to objectively measure the coherence of the theory in explaining the Agreed Facts, which is the test of the truth. For the details of this see Theory Mapping Truth Test.

The precise process for conducting the critical analysis of the incoherencies and finalizing the Incoherences Scores, depends upon which mode of application of Theory Mapping is being used – Debate or Competition.


Step 5: Iteration of the previous stages to increase coherence

You then work back through the previous stages to reduce the Incoherence Score i.e. looking for new Agreed Facts to support the theory and cause problems for other theories (Step 2), and strengthening the theory and the arguments (Step 3).
f