Theorizing is an integral part of empirical research just as empirical research has meaning only by reference to a theory or proposition from which it is generated. The scientist is constantly engaged in researching the accepted conclusions of his field; the theoretic propositions he uses. He does this researching by probing for facts of the empirical world that falsify one or more predictions or deductions generated by his accepted conclusions on theoretical models. It is also obvious that during this stage researching involves modification of the existing theoretical schemes or construction of new theoretical models that are expected to take the place of those mo longer able to make sense of or explain the existing state of things.
It is a near convention to view the relationship between theory and research from the vantage point of the former. This
leads to asking, "What does research do for theory in the way of testing its utility or correspondence with reality?" If we turn it around, we may ask, "What is there about a theory that has some import for the working researcher?"
These two questions meet at some point of the scientific enterprise but their answers are determined by the direction from which the meeting point is approached. Coming from theory to research
and moving towards theory, attention turns to such issues as
72 Research Methodology measurement in all its phases, translation of hypotheses into operational tenns, reliability of empirical indicators and so on.
There is in evidence an unfortunate tendency in quite a few methodological writings dealing with connections between theory and other from their respective starting points but fail ever to meet head on at any point of their journeys.
The rift between empiricists (empirical fact-gatherers who intend to generalize on empirical data) and theorists, is very old indeed. The great encyclopaedic minds of thinkers like Comte, Spencer and Marx developed grand conceptual schemes on social organization and change. At this time there was already some theorizing which was devoid of empirical reference.
Around 1938, a cry voiced through the Journal of Empirical Society of London went up that in the business of Social Science, principles are valid for application only in as much as they are legitimate inductions from facts accurately observed and methodologically classified. The conflict between theorists and researchers, to use Weber's words, the interpretive specialists and the subject-matter specialists, has filtered down to the present day. It is true that theory in social sciences has developed to a great extent independently of systematically pursued research and on the other hand, empirical research has seldom concerned itself with theoretic interest. The result is a deep hiatus. Alongside of this is the erroneous assumption that theory-building and researching are two mutually exclusive domains and that theorists and researching are two mutually exclusive domains and that theorists and researchers have to belong to only one of these two schools. In consequence, empiricists have rarely attempted to contribute to theory and are often anti-theoretical; for them theory is mere speculation-sterile dialectic or mysticism. On the other hand, the theorists have equally sadly shown scant regard for empirical work.
It should be appreciated that the historical and intellectual backdrop behind the apparent conflict between theory and empiricism.
Firstly, social sciences had their roots in social philosophy. Early masters of social thought were speculative philosophers having a
characteristics disdain for any empirical base required for spinning out theoretical schemes.
Secondly, empiricism's emphasis on measurement, quantification and their equation with scientific value has been one major cause of conflict between empirical researchers and theorists since the theorists opined that inhuman mteraction everything cannot be counted
and everything that is count does not count (matter).
Thirdly, empiricists are disillusioned by a plethora of theoretic orientations which appear as social theory since some propositions derived from them are so vague and general that they cannot be systematically tested.
Fourthly, theorists have been disenchanted by a telling discontinuity of empirical research, abundance of facts and decreased empirical generalization.
Principally, however, the scientific activity consists in producing a smashing collision on the highway connecting theory and empirical research. The purpose of such a collision is to generate a genuinely useftil insight just as atom smashing produces new knowledge rather than a heap of debris. It is worthy of note that the forth, between
the empirical and the systematic, i.e., theoretical (or rational).
It was on earlier occasion, pointed to the limitations inherent in the results of a single research study as also to the need for accumulating systematic knowledge founded on a broader theoretical base. Without such cumulative knowledge steadily flowing from the continuities of empirical research, the insights of social science will necessarily remain limited to the specific settings and problems in which the investigations have actually been conducted. Such a cumulative body of knowledge can be developed, provided, empirical studies are theory-oriented and reciprocally, if theory is empirically confirmable.
Meaning of Theory: Scientific theory is a term which comes from the Greek word 'theorem' meaning to look at. A fair translation of scientific theory would be a knowledgeable outlook. There is a sense, of course, in which every one has a world outlook, and thus
74 Research Methodology
themeanestofmanhashis owntheory; andtothinkatallisto
theorize. Theory in ordinary speech does not mean this (more usually it means what is called a working hypothesis). Science provides the only systematic and corrigible world outlook not requiring any special suppositions beyond those readily made or ordinary men of affairs.
It thus makes possible agreement and collaboration among people who in other respects, would be in severe disagreement.
Theory is a much abused tenn. It is, therefore, important to distinguish the modern scientific usage of the word 'theory' from other possible meanings it might have come to acquire. In common parlance, theory is identified with speculation. What is. 'theoretical' is thought to be unrealistic, visionary or impracticable. Merton points out that among sociologists, the tenn 'sociological theory' has had at least six different meanings. In the early days of a science, theories were often the result of arm-chair speculation and had meagre support in empirical data. Theory and observation (empirical facts) become more and more connected as science develops. The social science in their present state of development do not always show a close link between research and theory and some current social theories do contain speculative elements, that leap off beyond the evidence of available data. By and large, the intention of a theory in modern science is to summarize existing knowledge, to provide an explanation for observed events and relationships and to predict the occurrence of as yet unobserved events and relationships, on the basis oftheexplanatoryprinciples embodied inthe conceptual scheme.
Simply viewed, theory should be understood as a conceptual scheme designed to explain observed regularities or relationships between two or more variables. Writes Karl Popper in his Logic of 'scientific discovery, "Theories are mts cast to catch what we call 'the world,' to rationalize, to explain and also to master it. We endeavour to make the mesh finer and finer."Parsons observes, "The theoretical system (in the present sense) is the body of logically interdependent generalized concepts of empirical reference."
Whereas a theory in the earlier times was considered a final and irrefutable explanation of some class of things or realm of
phenomena,in modem science it is always held with some measure of tentativeness, no matter how great the accumulation of findings consistent with it. It is considered as the most probable or most efficient way of accounting for those findings in the light of extant body of knowledge, but is always open to revision. On the whole, it may be said that modem science is modest in regard to its claims in as much as it is fully aware that its findings are all provisional. It do not find itself in a position to make final pronouncements having seen that the river of knowledge has too often turned back on itself.
science has changed not only the face of earth and the life of its mode of thinking plays a more important role than knowledge and erudition, as of old. It was resulted in a method which leads to new knowledge and making a line of thought.
Johan Galtung conceives of theory as a set of hypotheses structured by the relation of implicating or deducibility. Formally put, "a theory T is a structure (H, I) where H is a set of hypotheses and! is a relation in H called implication or deducibility, so that H is wealdy connected by I"
R. B. Braithwaite's exposition of 'theory' can barely be
equalled. For him, a theory consists of a set of hypotheses which is arranged in such a way that is, which is arranged in such a way that from some of he hypotheses as premises all the other hypotheses logically follow. The propositions in a deductive system may be considered as being arranged in an order of levels, the hypotheses at the highest level being those which occur only as premises in the system, those at the lower level being those which occur as conclusions of deductions from higher level hypotheses and which serve as premises for deduction to lower level hypothesis"Parsons would view the theoretical system as one which ideally tends to become logically closed, to reach such a state of logical integration that every logical implication of any combination of propositions in the system is explicitly stated in some other proposition in the same system.
However, it is will worth remembering that not all theories have a determinate logical structure as Braithwaite's exposition
76 Research Methodology
would lead us to 'believe.' Theories may have strong or weak structures. a strong theory stricture (tight-knit theory) may
be
represented as under:
HYPOTHESIS 1
1
HYPOThESIS 2
1
HYPOTHESIS 3
'If
HYPOTHESIS
4
TIGHT-KNIT THEORY Fig. 3.1
From the above representation, it is clear tat the lower level hypotheses which are deductions from the higher level hypotheses are all on the same implication path and that the chainof implication is a neat and uninterested one.
In contradiction, a weakly structured (loose-knit) theory may be depicted as under:
HYPOTHESIS-I HYPOTHESIS-2
/ /
HYPOTHESIS-3 HYPOTHESIS-4
/ / //
HYPOTHESIS-9 HYPOTHESIS-lO HYPOTHESIS-I I
LOOSE-KNIT-THEORY
Fig. 3.2
It is obvious that the looke-knit structure unlike the one for tight knit theories (Fig. 3.2) is characterized by the implicationchains on which the hypotheses are located.
Thus, it would seem as able puts it, "All theories fall in two
77 extremes of a simple explanatory principle and a deductive system with an abstract relational structure formed by the theoretical postulates."
Hempel has likened a scientific theory to a network in which terms and concepts are represented by knots and the definitions and hypotheses by threads connecting the knots.
Says Hempel, "The whole system floats, as it were, above the plane observation and is anchored to it by the rules of interpretation.
These might be viewed as strings which are not the part of the network bu link certain points of the latter, with specific places on the plane of observation. By virtue of these interpretative connections,
the network can function as a scientific theory. From certain
observational data, we may ascend, via as interpretative string, to some point in the theoretical network, and from there proceed, via definitions and hypotheses, to other points, from which other interpretative strings permit ascent to the plane of observation."(See fig. 3.3)
Fig. 3.3. Hempel's portrayal of theory
CO1JCEPT
SYSTEM 4
OaSEBVA11ONS
78 Research Methodology A theory explains empirical observations, since if anything, it is a mental construction that seeks to model the empirical system, Let us try to understand with the help of an interesting illustration, the nature of theoretical explanation.
In the third century A. D., it was observed that any natural catastrophe,, be if an earthquake, flood, drought, iimine or pestilence, was followed by persecution of the Christians by the Romans.
In the 20th century around the thirties (1930-40), it was observed that a fall in the per acre value of cotton in certain southern states of the USA, was followed by incidences of lynching of Negroes by the whites. The underlying similarity in the two observations, viz.' that catastrophe leads to persecution, is all the more striking because these incidents relate to periods far apart in time as also to different peoples and events. How can we go about explaining this sequence of events?
These two observations of a similar nature can be explained by means of a theory which involves the concepts: frustration, aggression, inhibition and displacement. This theory by Dollard and associates, inhibition 'Frustration aggression theory,' is constituted of interlocking hypotheses involving the above mentioned concepts.
The theory in essence stated that when a person is frustrated and is inhibited from expressing his aggression directly toward the perceived source of frustration (because the source is powerful and capable of inflicting injuries, e.g., God or Government; he or she will displace his or her aggression toward weaker things(incapable of retaliating to the aggressive acts). Thus, according to this theory both the aggression by Romans against Christians after the occurrence of natural catastrophes or by fall in income of whites, results in aggression but the futility or fear of being directly aggressive against the God or society or Government inhibits the direct expression of aggression against the real sources of frustration and results in its being 'displaced' on to groups which are underprivileged and thus incapable of retaliating.
Hence, with the help of the above theory, an explanation can
79 we offered not only for these two different observations but also on many other events such as the aggressive action of an officer against his subordinates following frustration by his superior officer or a doll, following frustration caused by its parent's action& This way,
a theoretical perspective brings out in a number of different
phenomena the operation of some underlying general principle.It must, of course, be noted that the 'frustration aggression theory' in its present form is inadequate. It does not account for the variety of relevant phenomena and cannot satisfactorily overcome some objections (Freud shows, for instance, that the frustration may lead to some highly constructive activity too).
This does not, however, mean that the 'frustration aggression theory is wrong. It is ju that it is insufficient, not specific enough and not able to cover the relevant observable phenomena. The limiting conditions under which it applies (the ceteris paribus clause) have not yet been defined and this interferes seriously with its predictive value. In social sciences, there are very few theories that can safely be used for explanation and prediction. To speak intenns ofHempel's metaphor, one discovers isolated knots with loose threads hanging, awaiting, systematic efforts to tighten them and to tie them together;
and quite often, even knots are not yet available.
Something needs to be said here what has hitherto been left implicit. The term theory as applied to the realm of social sciences is in fact used mostly to refer to some logical explanation about social phenomena or a class there of, logically constructed and systematically organised, that underscores the relationship between two well-defined variables. It is much more than a social law supported by evidence. As a systematic relation between facts, it cannot simply be derived from empirical observations and generalizations by means of rigorous induction. It represents a symbolic construction, theory building is a matter of creative achievement.
As a conceptual scheme reaches out beyond itself, it transcends the observable realm of empirical reality into a higher level of abstraction be means of symbolic construction.
80 Research Methodology
In other words, theoretical statements can in most cases arise by a genetic path between sense-data and theoretical perspectives, out of sense datum statements. But by the time theoretical statements are reached, there is much more than could even be represented in terms of sense-data. A certain open texture is required in scientific theory which can be marred by an insistence translatabffity criteria.
Theory, if it is to be of any use, is bound to move ahead of the observations which support it in the first place. Thus, theory is not something which can be summed up in terms of observations, measurements or the positive content of our of any statement seeking entitlements as scientific theory is whether it can demonstrate the other phenomena, i.e., not merely the ones on which it rests in the first place. In this sense it stands for the symbolic dimension of experience as opposed the apprehension of brute fact.
From the very nature of social science theories emanates the limitations characterising these theories, viz., that they often represent speculative exercises and it may not be possible to establish their correspondence with will-defined propositions or laws that can be empirically tested. This state of maturity is distant goal for most social sciences. The development of these science has been marked by a large number of conflicting theoretical perspectives.
Social scientists have not yet been able to develop a single inductive procedure or a mathematical model that could test their theories and validate them as applicable to all groups and societies. these theories lie between empirical law and speculative argument. Even a simple hypothesis may be regarded a minor theory and a speculative idea may come to be called theory if it generates at least one fruitful hypothesis, logically.
The theories of social sciences in the light of what has been said above can be verified only in a preliminary way, i.e., not in the strict statistical sense or not by fitting the syndrome of facts having a bearing on the class of phenomena being theorized. Social science theory can aspire for validation mostly by symbolic correspondence.
In the social-behavioural sciences, a quest for true theory could be a futile intellectual exercise. Every theory holds some pieces
Research andTheory
to the picture puzzle of the socialworld. A comprehensive picture of social phenomena may be expected to emergethrough the integration of a variety of social
Theories: It is assumed that nothing exists exceptthe world, then theory is part of the world; a part which stands in some way for the whole; and a comprehensive theoryin dealing with the world will have to deal also with itself as apart of this world, just as the map of a country drawn somewhere in that country would have to contain a very much reduced replica of itself. a particular social theory may be linked to a map which showed only roads, or one which showed only railways. Scientific theories are selective; any one science is dealing with only a fraction of what there is to be observed. For that matter, all the sciences taken togetherwill still give a very incomplete account of the world we know, just as the superimposition of all the specialized maps -the road map, the railway map, the demographic map, etc.,would still leave indefinitely many concrete facts about the country unexpressed.
It is will-worth reminding ourselves herethat no theory is absolutely true since there is no absolutetruth in the first place and no theory is a final formulation because ripples of new knowledge are splashing in all the time. These modify or even repudiate the existing theory.
It will serve us will to note that theories whichstand repudiated today had their days of glory. For example, at the present time Comte's theory of unilineal evolution has been used by experts on modernization to describe progress and evolutionin total societies.
There is a need to sound a caution about the possible fallacy of misplaced concreteness which comprises placing of theoretical entities in the same world as the observable ones. Indeed, if they are there at all, they are there bydefinition, invisibly, which is certainly odd in a world whose claim to existence lies in it being observed.
But the invention of theoretical entities is necessaryfor the progress of science and there is nothing wrong withthem as long as they are not thought of as belonging to the observable world. All sorts of possible worlds with all sorts of imaginaryconstituents, behaving in