What Is Social Theory?
Blame Analysis is Not Theory The Parts of Theory
Concepts Assumptions Relationships
The Aspects of Theory Direction of Theorizing Range of Theory Levels of Theory Forms of Explanation
The Three Major Approaches to Social Science Positivist Approach
Interpretive Approach Critical Approach The Dynamic Duo
From Chapter 2 of Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Third Edition. W. Lawrence Neuman. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
When they begin college, many students move and live away from home for the first time. Even if they attended multiracial high schools, most of the students had lived in same-race close living situations prior to attending college. Depending on the colleges, they could be assigned a room- mate in a college residence hall or dormitory.
The students who get same-race roommates probably do not change their views on race, but you may wonder whether students assigned to a roommate from a different racial group change their views. Social scientists approach this type of question by looking to theories to explain how, why, or under what conditions a person’s views on race change. A widely tested social psychological theory, the “contact hypothesis,”
says when someone has regular, close interper- sonal contact with someone of a different “out- group” (i.e., a different racial group from their own in the United States), the person is likely to modify views about out-group members. Nega- tive stereotypes fade and positive feelings grow toward the out-group compared to the situation prior to close contact. How much this happens depends on certain conditions about the con- tact, such as whether the people involved are equals and whether the contact is cooperative versus competitive. The contact hypothesis is a small-scale social theory (also called middle- range, discussed later in this chapter), a type of theory often used in a research study.
What comes to mind when you hear the word theory? Theory is one of the least under- stood terms for students learning social science.
My students’ eyelids droop if I begin a class by saying, “Today we are going to examine the theory of . . .”. Many students feel that theory is irrelevant to “real life.” It floats high among the clouds. Some of my students have called it
“a tangled maze of jargon.”
Contrary to these views, theory is essential to expand understanding and it has a vital role in research. Its use varies by type of research, but most social science studies use theory in some way. In simple terms, a research study joins theory—which is like a story that explains how
the social world operates—with data—carefully observed aspects of the social world that are rel- evant to the theory.
WHAT IS SOCIAL THEORY?
The purpose of social theory is to explain or answer why the social world has certain pat- terns, operations, or events. There are several ways to explain (see later in this chapter). We explain in daily life, as in why people’s atti- tudes about people of a different race change.
Theory is not exotic; we constantly use theory when we think about how the world works, or what makes something happen (e.g., why U.S.
divorce rates dropped in recent years, why stu- dents from certain neighborhoods tend to do better in school than those from other neigh- borhoods). Our everyday theories are simply incomplete, limited, and fragmented versions of full social theories. Some social theories explain in a form that is similar to everyday life expla- nations whereas others explain in a form that is different. What distinguishes a theoretical explanation is less its form than that theory uses a collection of carefully considered concepts, has logical consistency, and is embedded within a larger arrangement of similar explanations.
S ocial theory is defined as a system of inter- connected abstractions or ideas. The system condenses and organizes knowledge. In this way, social theory is a compact way to expand understanding of the social world. Theories move understanding from one specific situation (e.g., students from neighborhood X in Nash- ville, Tennessee, get better grades in 10th grade than students from neighborhood Y) toward general understanding and knowledge (e.g., students living in neighborhoods with condi- tions A, B, and C tend to do better in school than those growing up in neighborhoods that lack A, B, and C).
Sometimes classes on social theory focus on the history of social thought, which mixes the history of famous past thinkers with social
world into parts, pointing to what types of evi- dence or data (i.e., facts) are important for it.
Facts and theories are less opposites than the complementary parts of an overall explanation.
Because most research involves some form of theory, the question is less whether you use theory than how you use it in a study. Being clear and explicit about theory will make it easier to read research reports and to conduct a study.
It is very difficult to conduct a solid, logically tight study if you are vague and unclear about the theory within it. Once you are aware of how theory fits into the research process, you will find the studies of others easier to understand and can design better studies.
Many people use everyday theories without labeling them as such. For example, newspaper articles or television reports on social issues usu- ally contain unstated social theories embedded within them. A news report on the difficulty of implementing a school desegregation plan con- tains an implicit theory about race relations.
Likewise, political leaders frequently express social theories when they discuss public issues.
A politician who claims that inadequate educa- tion causes people to be poor or who says that a decline in traditional moral values is the cause of crime is expressing a type of simple theory.
Compared to the theories of social scientists, such laypersons’ theories are usually less sys- tematic, clearly formulated, or logically tight.
Many everyday theories are more difficult than scientific theory to test and evaluate with empir- ical evidence. A common substitute for theory is blame analysis. Do not confuse social theory with blame analysis, a topic we look at next.
Blame Analysis is Not Theory
Blame analysis is a counterfeit argument that some people present as if it were a theoretical explanation. In it, people substitute attributing blame for a causal explanation. Blame belongs to the realm of making a moral, legal, or ideo- logical claim. Blame implies an intention, negli- gence, or responsibility for an event or situation theory. Great classical social theorists (e.g.,
Durkheim, Freud, Marx, Tönnies, Weber) gen- erated many innovative ideas that expanded our understanding of the social world. They created original theories that laid the foundation for subsequent generations of thinkers. We still study the classical theorists because they pro- vided numerous creative and interrelated ideas.
Their ideas significantly shifted how we under- stand the social world. We continue to discuss them because geniuses who generate many orig- inal, insightful ideas that fundamentally advance understanding are rare. The ideas of past think- ers contain many theories on specific issues and are sources of current theories.
Many laypeople confuse theory with a wild hunch or speculative guess. They may say, “It’s only a theory” or ask, “What’s your theory about it?” This everyday use of the term theory often creates confusion. Everyday guess- ing differs from serious social theory in several ways. Unlike a carefree guess we might toss out without much thought, dozens of serious pro- fessionals have built and debated social theory over many years. They securitize the theory for logical consistency and continue to evaluate and seek evidence for its key parts. They exam- ine whether the theory applies to specific situa- tions. Over time, they advance the parts of the theory on which there is much agreement and evidence. They refine and build on these parts.
At the same time, they trim off or drop parts of theory that no longer fit well into its overall picture of the world, or parts for which the evi- dence is weak or contradictory.
You have probably heard the distinction between theory and fact. Life is rarely so simple and clear. What many people consider to be a
“fact” (e.g., light a match in a gasoline-filled room and it will explode) is what many scientists call a theory (e.g., a theory of how combining certain quantities of particular chemicals with oxygen and a certain level of intense heat greatly increases the odds of an explosive force). Facts and theories can blur together because a theory contains concepts that divide up the empirical
or more words. In natural science concepts are expressed as symbols, such as Greek letters (e.g., a ). or formulas (e.g., s = d/t; s = speed, d = distance, t = time). In social science, con- cepts are expressed as words. Some people are intimidated or nervous about the exotic sym- bols or formulas of natural science; however, the ordinary words used in specialized ways in social science can create confusion. The distinc- tion between concepts expressed as symbols or as words is not a big one. After all, words are symbols too. Words are symbols we learn as language.
Let us take a concept with which you are already familiar: height. I can say the word height or write it down; the spoken sounds and writ- ten words are part of the English language. The combination of letters in the word symbolizes, or stands for, the idea in our heads of a height.
Chinese or Arabic characters, the French word hauteur, the German word höhe, the Spanish word altura —all symbolize the same idea. In a sense, a language is merely an agreement among people to use sounds or written characters to represent ideas in their heads. We learned the connection between ideas and sounds or writing at some point in our lives. In this way, you can think of learning concepts and theory as being like learning a language. 3
Concepts are everywhere, and you use them all the time. Height is a simple concept from your daily experience. Think about it, what does height mean? You may find it easy to use the concept of height, but you may find describing the concept itself more difficult. Height repre- sents an abstract idea about a physical relation- ship. It is a characteristic of a physical object, the distance from top to bottom. All people, buildings, trees, mountains, books, and so forth have a height. We can measure height or com- pare it. A height of zero is possible, and height can increase or decrease over time. As with many words, we use the word in several ways. Height is used in the expressions the height of the bat- tle, the height of the summer, and the height of fashion.
(usually unfavorable). Blame analysis focuses on the question of who is responsible instead of the social theory question of why did it occur or what makes events happen as they do. Blame analysis assumes there is a culprit or source on which we can fix responsibility. The goal of blame analysis is to identify a responsible party, not to expand understanding. In practice, blame analysis often exempts or shields certain people or ideas, such as the injured party, members of a sympathetic audience, or a sacred value or principle. Limits in blame analysis make even its search for a responsible party restricted. Blame analysis is rarely broad or inclusive; it fails to provide a complete picture. A focus on finding a responsible party and limits on the picture it provides means that blame analysis often ham- pers the development of a full explanation.
The mass media, politicians, and many pub- lic commentators frequently use blame analysis in place of theoretical analysis. Blame analysis spreads misunderstanding because it confuses blame with cause. It offers a particular account (or story of what occurred) instead of a full, logical explanation. Usually blame analysis first presents an unfavorable event or situation—
such as a bank robbery, a group being paid less than other equally qualified people, or terrible traffic congestion in an area. Next, it identifies one or more “likely suspects” or responsible parties. It then provides selective evidence that focuses on one of the responsible parties, often shielding other parties or contributing sources.
Unlike a theoretical explanation, it does not explore all potential causes or examine system- atically collected empirical evidence, both for and against many competing causes. 1
THE PARTS OF THEORY Concepts
All theories contain many concepts, and con- cepts are the building blocks of theory. 2 A con- cept is an idea expressed as a symbol or as one
frustration, and displaced aggression) from many origins: personal experience, creative thought, or observation. They also borrow con- cepts from daily life, analyze, refine, and redefine the concepts, then connect them to other con- cepts to build a larger theory. The flow between social scientific and lay concepts also goes the other way. Many terms of daily life—such as sex- ism, lifestyle, peer group, urban sprawl, and social class —began as precise, technical concepts in social theory. Over time, the terms diffused into the culture, appearing in daily conversations and mass media. As they diffused, their origin was lost and their meaning became less precise.
We can use a simple nonverbal process (e.g., pointing to an object or event, mimicking a behavior) to define simple, concrete concepts such as book or height. Most social science con- cepts are more complex and abstract. We define them with formal, dictionary-type definitions that build on other concepts. It may seem odd to use concepts to define other concepts, but we do this all the time. Often we combine simple, easy-to-see concepts from ordinary experience to create “higher level” or abstract concepts. For example, I defined height as a distance between top and bottom. Top, bottom, and distance are concepts. Height is more abstract than top or bottom. Abstract concepts refer to aspects of the world we may not directly experience, but orga- nize thinking and extend understanding.
In daily conversations, we can get away with being loose and sloppy with concepts. Social theory requires more logical and precise defi- nition than in daily discourse. Definitions help us link theory with research. A valuable goal of high-quality research, and especially explor- atory research, is to sharpen, clarify, and refine concepts. Weak, contradictory, or unclear defi- nitions of concepts impede the advance of sys- tematic thinking and scientific knowledge.
Concept Clusters. We rarely use concepts in isolation. Concepts form interconnected groups, or concept clusters. This is true for concepts in everyday language as well as for those in social The word height refers to an abstract idea
that we associate with a sound and written form.
Nothing in the sounds or writing that make up the word are inherent in the idea it represents.
The connection between an idea and its sounds or written form is arbitrary, but it is still very useful. The sounds and writing allow us to express the abstract idea to one another by using the symbol alone.
Concepts have two parts: a symbol (a writ- ten form or a word) and a definition. We learn definitions in many ways. I learned the word height and its definition from my parents.
I learned it as I learned to speak and was social- ized to the culture. My parents never gave me a dictionary definition. I learned the concept of height through a diffuse, nonverbal, informal process. My parents showed me many examples;
I observed and listened to other people use the word; I sometimes used the word incorrectly and was corrected; and I used it correctly and was understood. Eventually, I mastered the con- cept and used it successfully in daily life, and later in school or work settings.
This example shows how we learn and share concepts in everyday language. Suppose my par- ents had isolated me from television and other people. They then taught me that the word for the idea height was zodged. I would have had dif- ficulty communicating with other people. This illustrates that people must share the words and definitions for concepts if the concepts are to be of value. Concepts may begin in one person’s mind, or one person might invent an entirely new esoteric concept and keep it private, but the usefulness of concepts rests in our ability to share them with other people.
Concepts are pervasive in daily life, but most layperson concepts have vague and unclear definitions. Ordinary or lay concepts tend to be shaped by the values, misconceptions, or expe- riences of the people living in a specific culture.
These concepts tend to be more culturally lim- ited and less precise than those in social science.
Social scientists develop new concepts (e.g., fam- ily system, gender role, socialization, self-worth,
aspects of a concept. Ideal types are broader, more abstract concepts that bring together sev- eral narrower, more concrete concepts.
Ideal types are not theoretical explanations because they do not tell why or how some- thing occurs. They are smaller than theories, but important. We use them to build a theory.
Qualitative researchers often use ideal types to see how well observable phenomena match up to the ideal model. For example, Max Weber developed an ideal type of the concept bureau- cracy. Many people use Weber’s ideal type (see Example Box 1). It distinguishes a bureaucracy from other organizational forms (e.g., social movements, kingdoms, etc.). It also clari- fies critical features of a kind of organization that people once found nebulous and hard to think about. No real-life organization perfectly theory. Theories have collections of linked con-
cepts that are consistent and mutually reinforc- ing. Together, they form a web of meaning. For example, to discuss a concept such as urban decay, I need a set of associated concepts (e.g., urban expansion, economic growth, urbanization, suburbs, center city, revitalization, mass transit, and racial minorities ).
Some concepts take on a range of values, quantities, or amounts. Examples of these kinds of concepts are amount of income, temperature, density of population, years of schooling, and degree of violence. These are variable concepts, or just variables (discussed in a later chapter).
Other concepts express types of nonvariable phenomena (e.g., bureaucracy, family, revolu- tion, homeless, and cold ). Theories use both vari- able and nonvariable concepts.
Classification Concepts. Some concepts are simple; they have a single dimension and vary along a continuum. Others are complex; they have multiple dimensions or many subparts.
We can break complex concepts into a set of simple, or single-dimension, concepts. For example, Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Ste- phens (1992:43–44) stated that democracy has three dimensions: (1) regular, free elections with universal suffrage; (2) an elected legislative body that controls government; and (3) freedom of expression and association. The authors recog- nized that each dimension varies by degree. They combined the dimensions to create a set of types of regimes. Regimes very low on all three dimen- sions are totalitarian, those high on all three are democracies, and those with other mixes are either authoritarian or liberal oligarchies.
Classifications are partway between a single concept and a theory. 4 They help to organize abstract, complex concepts. To create a new classification, we logically specify and combine characteristics of simpler concepts. One well- known type of classification is the ideal type.
Ideal types are pure, abstract models that define the essence of the phenomenon in question.
They are mental pictures that tell us the central
EXAMPLE BOX
Max Weber’s Ideal Type of Bureaucracy
1
■ It is a continuous organization governed by a system of rules.
■ Conduct is governed by detached, impersonal rules.
■ There is division of labor, in which differ- ent offices are assigned different spheres of competence.
■ Hierarchical authority relations prevail; that is, lower offices are under control of higher ones.
■ Administrative actions, rules, and so on are in writing and maintained in files.
■ Individuals do not own and cannot buy or sell their offices.
■ Officials receive salaries rather than receiving direct payment from clients in order to ensure loyalty to the organization.
■ Property of the organization is separate from personal property of officeholders.
Source: Based on Chafetz (1978:72)
From Chafetz. A Primer on the Construction and Testing of Theories in Sociology, 1E. © 1978 Wadsworth, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions