As well as the “theoretical—empirical” axis, there is an “idealized—realistic” axis. The former distinction is about the methods you apply (with extremes exemplified by rigorous mathematics and blind experimentation, respectively). The later is a quality of your assumptions / paradigm. Highly empirical work is forced to be realistic, but theoretical work can be more or less idealized. Most of my recent work has been theoretical and idealized, which is the domain of (de)confusion. Applied research must be realistic, but should pragmatically draw on theory and empirical evidence. I want to get things done, so I’ll pivot in that direction over time.
As well as the “theoretical—empirical” axis, there is an “idealized—realistic” axis. The former distinction is about the methods you apply (with extremes exemplified by rigorous mathematics and blind experimentation, respectively). The later is a quality of your assumptions / paradigm. Highly empirical work is forced to be realistic, but theoretical work can be more or less idealized. Most of my recent work has been theoretical and idealized, which is the domain of (de)confusion. Applied research must be realistic, but should pragmatically draw on theory and empirical evidence. I want to get things done, so I’ll pivot in that direction over time.