What is the difference in the evaluation of a study versus a theory?

When evaluating studies, you are assessing how useful the findings of the studies are in explaining the key question within the topic. Therefore, all evaluation points need to refer to the strengths and limitations of the methodology of the study that produced said findings. A useful framework for highlighting points of contention within a study's usefulness is the acronym GRAVE (Generalisability, Reliability, Applicability, Validity and Ethical considerations of the study). For Example, in evaluating the usefulness of Milgram's Original Obedience Study (1963), one should consider how the use of artificial electric shocks in the experiment may compromise the ecological validity of the experiment, as in everyday life this is not how obedience is expressed. Thus, providing a limitation of the methodology of the study, which in turn limits the usefulness of the study's findings as an explanation of obedience, and thus its overall usefulness.When evaluating theories however, a key distinction is that you are now evaluating the usefulness of the explanations made by the theory in answering the key question within the topic, instead of an evaluation of the findings. Therefore, in this instance, all evaluation points need to refer the strengths and limitations in regards to the evidence of the theory's explanations. A useful framework for highlighting points of contention within a theory’s usefulness is the acronym SODA (Supporting research, Opposing research, Different theory and Application of the theory). For example, in evaluating the usefulness of the Agentic Theory as an explanation of obedience, one should consider Hofling (1966) as supporting research. Where researchers found that 21 out of 22 (95%) of nurses were easily influenced into carrying out the orders made by a fake Doctor to give drugs to patients. Thus, supporting how a perceived authority figure ( a Doctor) can increase obedience as proposed by agentic theory. Thus, providing a strength of the theory as an explanation of obedience as it is well supported by research evidence, which in turn increases the theory's overall usefulness.