40 .Chapter1: HumanInquiryand Science
C H A P T E R 2
ADDITIONAL READINGS
Babbie, Earl. 1994. The SociologicalSpirit. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. This book is a primer in some sociologicalpoints
of view. It introduces you to many
of the concepts commonly used in the social
sciences.
Babbie, Earl. 1998. Obse7virzg Ourselves:Essays inSocial
Researclz. Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.
A collection of essaysthat expand some of the
philosophical issues you wilI see in the following
chapters, including objectivity,pparadignls, determinism,
concepts, reality, causation, and values.
Becker, Howard S. 1997. T77'cksof tJze Trade:How to
Tlzilzkabotit YourResearclz Wzile Yotl're Doiizg It.
Chicago: University of Chicago.This very approachable
book offers an excellent "feel" for the
enterprise of socialscientiiic research, whether
qualitative or quantitative. It is filledwith research
anecdotes that show social inquiry to be a
lively and challenging endeavor.
Cole, Stephen. 1992.Making Science:Between Nahire
and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. If you are interested in a deeper examination
of science as a social enterprise, you may find
this a fascinating analysis.
Gallup, George, Jr., Bums Roper, Daniel Yankelovich
et al. 1990. "Polls that Made a Difference." The
PublicPerspective,MayIJune, pp. 17-2 1.Several
public opin'on researchers t d c about social research
polls that have had an important impact
I on everyday life.
Hoover, Icemeth R. 1992. TlzeElel71entsof Social Scientific
Tl'zilzki~zg.New Yorlc: St. Martin's Press.
Hooverpresents anexcellent overview of the lcey
elements in social scientificanalysis.
@,vASee the Wadsworth SociologyResource Center,
*&Virtual Society,for additional links, Internet exercisesby
chapter, quizzesby chapter, and Microcaserelated
materials:
SEARCH WORD SUMMARY
Go to the Wadswortll SociologyResource Center,
Virtual Society,to find a list of search words
for each chapter. Using the search words, go to InfoTrac
CollegeEdition, an online library of over 900
journals where you can do online research and find
readings related to your studies. To aid in your search
and to gain useful tips, see the Student Guide to InfoTrac
CollegeEdition on the Virmal SocietyWeb site:
Introduction
SomeSocialScience Paradigms
Macrotheory and Microtheory
Early Positivism
Social Darwinism
Conflict Paradiem
Symbolic Interactionism
Ethnomethodology
Structural Functionalism
Feminist Paradigms
Rational Objectivity Reconsidered
ElementsofSocialTheory
Two LogicalSystems Revisited
The Traditional Model of Science
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning:
A Case Illustration
A Graphic Contrast
DeductiveTheory Construction
"elting Started
Constructing Your Theory
An Example of Deductive Theory:
Distributive Justice
Inductive Theory Construction
An Example of Inductive Theory:
Why Do People Smolce Marijuana?
The LinksBetweenTheory and Research
I REVIEW QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
I ADDI'IIONAL READINGS
1 SOCIOLOGYWEB SITE
1 INFOTRAC COLLEGE EDITION
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
42 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory, andSocialResearch
Introduction
There are restaurants in the United Statesfond of
conductingpoliticalpolls among their dinerswhenever
an electionis in the o&g. Sometake these
polls very seriouslybecauseof their uncanny history
of predicting winners. Somemovie theaters have
achieved similar successby offeringpopcorn in bags
picturing either donkeys or elephants. Years ago,
granaries in the Midwest offeredfarmers a chance
to indicatetheir politicalpreferencesthrough the
bags of grainthey selected.
Suchidiosyncraticways of determining trends,
though interesting, all follow the same pattern over
time: They work for a while, and then they fail.
Moreover, we can't predict when or why they
will fail.
These unusual polling t e ~ h ~ q ~ e spoint to
a s i d c a n t shortcoming of "researchhdings"
based only on the observationof patterns. Unless
we can offer logical explanationsfor such patterns,
the regularities we've observed may be mere flukes,
chance occurrences.If you flip coins long enough,
you'll get ten heads in a row. Scientists might adapt
a street expression to describethis situation: "Patterns
happen."
Logical explanationsare what theories seek to
provide. Theories function three ways in research.
First, they prevent our being taken in by flukes.If
we can't explainwhy Ma's Diner has been so successfulin
predicting elections, we run the risk of
supporting a fluke. If we know why it has happened,
we can anticipatewhether or not it will
work in the future.
Second, theories make sense of observedpatterns
in a way that can suggest other possibilities.
If we understand the reasons why broken homes
produce more juvenile delinquency than do intact
homes-lack of supervision,for example-we can
take effective action, such as after-school youth
programs.
Finally,theories shape and direct research efforts,
pointing toward likely discoveriesthrough
empirical observation. If you were looking for your
lost keys on a dark street, you could whip your
flashlight around randomly,hoping to chance upon
the errant keys-or you could use your memory of
where you had been to limityour search to more
likely areas. Theories,by analogy, direct researchers'
flashlightswhere they are most likely to observe
interestingpatterns of sociallife.
This is not to say that all socialscience research
is tightly intertwined with socialtheory. Sometimes
socialscientistsundertake investigationssimplyto
discover the state of affairs, such as an evaluationof
whether an innovative socialprogram is working or
a poll to determine which candidate is -g a
political race. Similarly, descriptiveethnographies,
such as anthropologicalaccounts of preliterate societies,
produce valuable information and insights in
and of themselves. However, even studies such as
these often go beyond pure description to ask wly?
Theory is directlyrelevant to "why" questions.
This chapter explores some specificways theory
and researchwork hand in hand during the
adventure of inquiry into sociallife. We'll begin by
looking at some fundamental frames of reference,
calledparadigms,that underlie socialtheories and
inquiry.
SomeSocialScienceParadigms
There is usually more than one way to make sense
of things.In daily life, for example, liberals and
conservativesoften explainthe samephenomenon-teenagers
using guns at school,for example-quite
differently. So might the parents and
teenagersthemselves. But underlying these different
explanations,or theories, are paradigms-the
fundamental models or frames of reference we use
to organize our observationsand reasoning.
Paradigmsare often difficultto recognize as
such because they are so implicit,assumed, taken
for granted. They seemmore like "the way things
are" than like one possible point of view among
many. Here's an illustrationof what I mean.
Where do you stand on the issue of hurnan
rights? Do you feel that individualhuman beings
are saaed? Are they "endowedby their creator
with certain inalienablerights," as assertedby the
U.S. Declaration of Independence? Are there some
thingsthat no government should do to its citizens?
Let's get more concrete.In wartime, civilians
are sometimesused as human shieldsto protect
military targets. Sometimesthey are impressed
into slavelabor or even used as mobile blood banks
for military hospitals. How about organized programs
of rape and murder in support of "ethnic
cleansing"?
Those of us who are horrified and incensed by
suchpractices wiU probablyfind it difficult to see
our individualisticparadigm as only one possible
point of view among many. However, the Western
(andparticularlyU.S.) commitment to the sanctity
of the individualis regarded as bizarre by many
other culturesin today's world. Historicdy, it is decidedlya
mhority viewpoint.
While manyAsian countries,for example, now
subscribeto some "rights" that belong to individuals,
those are balanced against the "rightsr'of families,
organizations,and the societyat large. Criticized
for violatinghurnan rights, Asian leaders
often point to high aime rates and socialdisorganization
in Western societies as the cost of what they
see as our radical "cult of the individual."
Iwon't try to change your point of view on individualhuman
dignity, nor have I given up my
own. It's useful,however, to recognize that our
views and feelingsin this matter are the result of
the paradigmwe have been socializedinto; they
are not an objectivefactof nature. All of us operate
within many such paradigms. For example,the traditionalWestern
view of the actual world as an objective
reality distinct from our individualexperiences
of it is a deeply ingrained paradigm.
When we recognize that we are operating
within a paradigm, two benefits accrue. First, we
are better able to understand the seeminglybizarre
views and actions of others who are operatingfrom
a differentparadigm. Second, at times we can profit
from steppingoutside our paradigm. Suddenlywe
can see new ways of seeing and explainingthings.
We can't do that as long as we mistake our paradigm
for reality.
Paradigms play a fundamental role in science,
just as they do in daily life. Thomas ICuhn (1970)
drew attention to the role of paradigms in the history
of the natural sciences. Major scientificparadigms
have included such fundamental viewpoints
SomeSocialScienceParadigms .43
as Copernims's conception of the earth moving
around the sun (insteadof the reverse),Darwin's
theory of evolution, Newtonian mechanics, and
Einstein's relativity. Which scientifictheories "make
sense" depends on which paradigm scientistsare
maintaining.
While we sometimesthinkof science as developing
gradually over time, marked by important
discoveriesand inventions,ICuhn says that scientificparadigms
typically become entrenched, resisting
any substantialchange.Thus, theories and
research aliketake a certain fundamental direction.
Eventually, however, as the shortcomingsof a
particularparadigm became obvious, a new one
emerges and supplantsthe old. The seemingly natural
view that the rest of the universerevolves
around the earth, for example, compelled astronomers
to devise ever more elaborate ways to account
for the motions of heavenly bodies that they actually
observed.Eventually this paradigmwas supplanted
by the view that the earth and other planets
revolve around the sun. This was nothing less
F a n a revolutionarychange in perspective that
hdamentally alteredthe direction of theory and
research.ICuhn's classicbook on this subject is entitled,
appropriatelyenough, TheStn[ctc~reofScierztzjk
Rmolutions.
Social scientists have developed severalparadigms
for understanding socialbehavior.The fate of
supplantedparadigmsin the social sciences, however,
has differedfrom what IMm observed in the
natural sciences. Natural scientistsgenerally believe
that the successionfrom one paradigm to another
representsprogress from a false view to a true one.
For example, no modern astronomer believes that
the sun revolves around the earth.
In the social sciences, on the other hand, theoreticalparadigms
may gain or lose popularity, but
they are seldom discardedaltogether.The paradigms
of the social sciences offer a variety of views,
each of which offers insightsthe others lack while
ignoringaspects of sociallife that the others reveal.
Ultimately,paradigms are not true or false; as
ways ofloolcing, they are onlymore or less useful.
Each of the paradigms we are about to examine offers
a differentway of looking at hurnan sociallife.
Each makes certain assumptionsabout the nature
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
44 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,and Social Research SomeSocialScienceParadigms .45
of socialreality. As we shall see, each can open up
new understandings,suggest differentkinds of theories,
and inspire different kinds of research.
MacrotheoryandNicrotheory
Let's begin with a differenceconcerningfocusthat
stretches across many of the paradigms we'll discuss.
Some social theorists foms their attention on
society at large, or at least on large portions of it.
Topics of studyfor such macrotheoryinclude the
struggle between economic classesin a society,internationalrelations,
or the interrelationsamong
major institutionsin society, such as government,
religion, and family. Macrotheorydealswith large,
aggregate entities of society or even whole societies.
Somescholarshave taken a more intinlate
view of sociallife. Microtheory deals with issues
of sociallife at the level of individuals and small
groups.Dating behavior,jury deliberations,and
student-facultyinteractionsare apt subjectsfor a
miaotheoretical perspective. Such studies often
come close to the realm of psychology,but whereas
psychologiststypically focus on what goes on inside
humans, social scientists study what goes on between
them.
The distinctionbetween macro- and microtheory
cuts across the other paradigms we'll examine.
Some of them, such as symbolic interactionism
and ethnomethodology, are more often limited to
the microlevel.Others, such as the conflict paradigm,
can be pursued at either the micro- or the
maaolevel.
EarlyPositivism
When the FrenchphilosopherAuguste Comte
(1798-1857) coined the term sociologiein 1822,he
launched an intellectualadventure that is stillunfoldingtoday.
Most importantly,Comte identified
society as a phenomenon that can be studied scientifically.
(Initially,he wanted to label his enterprise
"socialphysics,"but that term was taken over
by another scholar.)
Prior to Comte's time, society simplywas. To
the extent that people recognized different kinds of
societies or changesin society over time, religious
paradigms generallypredominatedin explanations
of such differences.The state of socialaffairswas
often seen as a reflection of God'swill. Alternatively,
peoplewere challenged to create a "City of
God on earth to replace sin and godlessness.
Comte separatedhis inquiry from religion. He
felt that religiousbelief could be replaced with scientiiicstudyand
objectivity.His "positivephilosophy"
postulated three stages of history.A "theological
stage"predominatedthroughout the world until
about 1300.During the next five hundred years, a
"metaphysicalstage" replaced God with philosophical
ideas such as "nature" and "naturallaw."
Comte felt he was launchingthe third stage of
history, in which sciencewould replace religion
and metaphysics by basing knowledge on observations
through the five sensesrather than on belief
or logic alone. Comtefelt that society could be observed
and then explained logically and rationally
and that sociology couldbe as scientificas biology
or physics.
In a sense, all socialresearch descendsfrom
Comte. His view that society could be studied scientifically
came to form the foundationfor subsequent
development of the social sciences. his optimism
for the future, he coined the term positivism
to describe this scientificapproach, in contrastto
what he regarded as negative elements in the Enlightenment.As
we'll note later in this discussion,
only in recent decades has the idea of positivism
been seriously challenged.
SocialDarwinism
Comte's majorworlc on his positivist philosophy
was publishedbetween 1830and 1842.One year
after the publicationof the firstvolume in that series,
a young Britishnaturalist set sail on HMS
Beagle, beginning a cruise that would profoundly
affect the way we think of ourselves and our place
in the world.
In 1858,when Charles Darwinpublished his
The Origin of Species, he set forth the idea of evolution
through the process of natural selection.
to successwould be the most likely to survivelong
enough to reproduce. Those less well suited would
perish. Over time the traits of the survivorwould
come to dominatethe species.As later Darwinians
put it, species evolvedinto differentfonns through
the "survivalof the fittest."
As scholars began to study society analytically,
I
it was perhaps inevitablethat they would apply
Darwin's ideas to changesin the structure of huI
man affairs. Thejourney from simple hunting-andgatheringtribes
to large,industrial civilizationswas
easily seen as the evolution of progressively "fitter"
forms of society.
Among others,Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
concluded that society was gettingbetter and better.
Indeed, his native Englandhad profited greatly
I from the development of industrial capitalism,
and Spencerfavored a systemof free competition,
which he felt would insure continuedprogress
and improvement.Spencermay even have coined
the phrase, "the survival of the fittest."In any
event, he believed that this principle was a primary
force shapingthe nature of society.Social
Darwinism or social evolutionwas a popular view
in Spencer's time, although it was not universally
accepted.
This excerpt from a social sciencemethods
textbook published in 1950illustratesthe longterm
popularity of the notion that things are getting
better and better.
The use of atomicenergyas an explosive offers
most interestingprospects in the civil as in the
military field.Atomic explosivesmay be used
for transforming the landscape.They may be
used for blasting great holes and trenches in the
earth, which can be transformedinto lakes and
canals. In this way, it may become possible to
produce lakes in the midst of deserts, and thus
convert some of the worst places in the world
into oases and fertile countries. It may alsobe
possible to make the Arctic regions comfortable
by providing immense and constant sources of
heat. The North Pole might be convertedinto a
holiday resort.
(Gee 1950:339-40)
Simplyput, the theory statesthat as a species coped Quite aside from the widespread disenchantwith
its environment, those individualsmost suited ment with nuclear power, contemporaryconcerns
over global warming and the threat of rising sea
levelsillustrate a growing consciousnessthat
"progress"is often a two-edged sword. Clearly,
most of us operate today from a different paradigm.
ConflictParadigm
One of Spencer'scontemporariestook a sharply
different view of the evolution of capitalism.Karl
Marx (1818-1883) suggested that socialbehavior
could best be seen as the process of conflict: the attempt
to dominate others and to avoidbeing dominated.
Marx focused primarily on the struggle
among economicclasses. SpeciEcally, he examined
the way capitalismproduced the oppressionof
workers by the owners of industry.Marx's interest
in this topic did not end with analyticalstudy:
He was also ideologicallycommitted to restructuring
economicrelationsto end the oppressionhe
observed.
The contrastbetween the views set forth by
Spencer and Marx indicates the influence of paradigms
on research. These fundamentalviewpoints
4
shape the ldnds of observations we are likely to
make, the sorts of facts we seek to discover, and the
conclusionswe draw from those facts. Paradigms
also help determine which conceptswe see as relevant
and important. Whereas economic classes
were essentialto Marx's analysis, for example,
Spencerwas more interestedin the relationship between
individualsand society-particularly the
amount of freedom individualshad to surrender
lor societyto function.
The conflictparadigmproved to be fruitfuloutside
the realm of purely economicanalyses. Georg
Sirnmel(1858-1918)was especiallyinterestedin
small-scaleconflict, in contrast to the class struggle
that interestedMarx. Simmelnoted, for example,
that conflictsamongmembers of a tightly knit
grouptended to be more intense than those among
people who did not sharefeelings of belonging and
intimacy.
In a more recent applicationof the conflict paradigm,
when Michel Chossudovsky's (1997)analysis
of the InternationalMonetary Fund and World
Bank suggestedthat these two international organ1
izationswere increasingglobal poverty rather than
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
46 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,and Social Research
eradicatingit, he directedhis attention to the competing
interestsinvolvedin the process. In theoiy,
the chiefinterest being served should be the poor
people of the world or perhaps the impoverished,
Third-Worldnations.The researcher's inquiry,
however, identified many other interestedparties
who benefited:the commerciallendinginstitutions
who made loans in conjunction with the IMF and
World Bank and multinational corporationsseeking
cheap labor and markets for their goods,for example.
Chossudovsky'sanalysis concluded that the
interests of the banks and corporationstended to
take precedence over those of the poor people,
who were the intended beneficiaries. Moreover,
he foundmany policies were wealcening national
economiesin the ThirdWorld, as well as undermining
democraticgovernments.
Whereasthe conflictparadigm often focuses
on class, gender, and ethnic struggles, it would be
appropriateto apply it whenever differentgroups
have competinginterests.For example,it could
be fruitfullyappliedto understanding relations
among different departmentsin an organization,
fraternity and sorority rush weeks, or studentfaculty-administrativerelations,
to name just a few.
SymbolicInteractionism
In his overallfocus, Georg Simmel differedfrom
both Spencer and Marx. Whereas they were chiefly
concernedwith macrotheoreticalissues-large institutionsand
whole societiesin their evolution
through the course of history-Simmel was more
interestedin how individualsinteracted with one
another. In other words, his thinlidngand research
took a "micro"turn, thus calling attention to aspects
of socialreality that are invisiblein Marx's or
Spencer's theory.For example,he began by examining
dyads (groupsof two people) and triads (of
three people). Similarly, he wrote about "the web
of group affiliations."
Simmelwas one of the first European sociologists
to influence the developmentof U.S. sociology.
His focus on the nature of interactionsparticularly
influenced George HerbertMead (1863-
1931),CharlesHorton Cooley (1864-1929), and
otherswho toolcup the cause and developedit into
a powerful paradigmfor research.
Cooley, for example, introducedthe idea of the
"primary group," those intimate associateswith
whom we share a sense of belonging, such as our
family,friends, and so forth. Cooley also wrote of
the "looking-glassself" we form by loolcinginto the
reactions of people around us. If everyone treats us
as beautiful, for example,we conclude that we are.
Notice how fundamentallythe conceptsand theoretical
focusinspiredby this paradigm differ from
the society-levelconcernsof Spencerand Marx.
Mead emphasizedthe importance of our human
ability to "takethe role of the other,"imagining
how others feel and how they might behave in
certain circumstances.As we gain an idea of how
people in general see things, we develop a sense of
what Mead called the "generalizedother."
Mead also showed a specialinterest in the role
of communicationsin human affairs. Most interactions,
he felt, revolved around the process of individuals
reaching commonunderstanding through
the use of language and other such systems, hence
the term symbolic i~zteractialzism.
This paradigm can lend insightsinto the nature
of interactionsin ordinary sociallife, but it can also
help us understand unusual forms of interaction, as
in the followingcase.Emerson, Ferris, and Gardner
(1998)set out to understand the nature of "stalking."
Throughinterviews with numerous stalking
victims, they came to iden* differentmotivations
among stalkers, stagesin the developmentof a
stalking scenario,how people can recognize if they
are being staked, and what they can do about it.
Ethnomethodology
While some socialscientificparadigms emphasize
the impact of social structure on human behavior-that
is, the effect of norms, values, control
agents, and so forth-other paradigms do not.
Harold Garfinkel, a contemporarysociologist,
claimsthat people are continually creating social
structurethrough their actions and interactionsthat
they are, in fact, creatingtheir realities.Thus,
when you and your instructor meet to discuss your
term paper, even though there are myriad expectations
about how you both should act, your conversation
wiU differ somewhatfrom any of those that
have occurred before, and how you each act will
somewhatmodify your expectations in the future.
That is, discussingyour term paper will impact the
interactionseach of you have with other professors
and students in the future.
Given the tentativenessof reality in this view,
Gamnkel suggeststhat people are continuouslytrying
to make sense of the life they experience.In a
sense, he suggeststhat everyoneis actinglike a social
scientist, hence the term etl~izonzetlzodology,or
"methodologyof the people."
How would you go about learning about
people's expectationsand how they malce sense out
of their world? One technique ethnomethodologists
use is to break the rules, to violate people's expectations.Thus,
if you try to talk to me about your
term paper but I keep talking about football,this
might revealthe expectations you had for my behavior.
We might also see how you make sense out
ofmy behavior. ("Maybehe's using footballas an
analogy for understanding social systems theory.")
In another exampleof ethnomethodology,
Johen Heritage and David Greatbatch (1992)examinedthe
role of applausein Britishpoliticalspeeches:
How did the speakersevoke applause,and what
functiondid it serve (forexample, to complete a
topic)?Research within the ethnomethodological
paradigmhas ofrenfocused on communications.
There is no end to the opportunitiesyou have
fortrylng out the ethnomethodologicalparadigm.
For instance, the next time you get on an elevator,
spendyour ride facingthe rear of the elevator.
Don't facefront and watch the floor numbers whip
by (that'sthe norm, or expected behavior).Just
stand quietly facingthe rear. Seehow others react
to this behavior. Just as important, notice how you
fee1about it. If you do this experiment a few times,
you shouldbegin to develop a feel for the ethno-
methodologicalparadigm."
*Iam gratefulto my colleague,BernardMcGrane,
forthis experiment.Barney also has his studentseat
dinnerwith their hands,watchTV without turning it
on, and engage in other strangelyenlighteningbehavior
(McGrane1994).
. SomeSocialScienceParadigms .47
We'll return to ethnomethodologyin Chapter
10,when we discuss field research. For now,
let's turn to a very different paradigm.
StructuralFunctionalism
Structuralfunctionalism,sometimesalso known as
"social systemstheory," grows out of a notion introducedby
Comte and Spencer:A social entity,
such as an organizationor a whole society, can be
viewed as an organism. Like other organisms, a social
system is made up of parts, each of which contributes
to the functioningof the whole.
By analogy, consider the human body. Each
component-such as the heart, lungs, kidneys,
skin, and brain-has a particularjob to do. The
body as a whole cannot survive unless each of
these parts does itsjob, and none of the parts can
survive except as a part of the whole body. Or consider
an automobile.It is composed of the tires,
the steeringwheel, the gas tank, the spark plugs,
and so forth. Each of the parts serves a function for
i
t@ewhole; taken together,that system can get us
acrosstown. None ofthe individualparts would be
very useful to us by itself, however.
The view of society as a social system, then,
looks for the "functions"servedby its various components.
Social scientists using the structural functional
paradigmmight note that the function of the
police, forexample,is to exercisesocial controlencouragingpeople
to abide by the norms of society
and bringing to justice those who do not. Notice,
though, that they couldjust as reasonably ask
what functionscriminals serve in society.Within
the functionalistparadigm, we might say that aiminals
serve asjob security for the police. In a related
observation,Emile Durkheim (1858-1 917) suggested
that crimes and their punishment provide an
opportunityto reaffirm society's values. By catching
and punishing thieves, we reaffirm our collective
respect for private property.
To get a sense of the structural-functionalparadigm,
supposeyou were interested in explaining
how your college or university works. You might
thumb through the institution's catalog and begin
assembling a list of the administrators and support
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
48 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,and Social Research SomeSocialScience Paradigms .49
stafi (such as president, deans, registrar, campus security,
maintenance personnel).Then you might
figure out what eacll of them does and relate their
roles and activitiesto the chief functions of your
college or university, sucll as teaching or research.
This way of looking at an institution of higher
learning would clearly suggest a different line of inquiry
than, say, a conflictparadigm, which might
emphasize the clash of interestsbetween people
who have power in the institution and those
who don't.
People often discuss "functions"in everyday
conversations.Typically,however, the allegedfunctions
are seldomtested empirically. Somepeople
argue, for example, that welfare, intended to help
the poor, actuallyharms them in a variety of ways.
It is sometimes allegedthat welfare creates a deviant,
violent subculture in society, at odds with the
mainstream. From this viewpoint, welfare programs
actually result in increased crime rates.
Lance Hannon and JamesDefronzo (1998)decided
to test this last assertion.Worlbg with data
drawn from 406 urban countiesin the United
States,they examined the relationshipbetween
levels of welfare payments and crime rates. Contrary
to the beliefs of some,their data indicated that
higher welfare payments were associatedwith
lower crime rates. In other words, welfare programs
have the function of decreasingrather than
increasing lawlessness.
FeministPamdigms
When Ralph Linton concludedhis anthropological
classic, The StLldy of Man (1937:490), speaking of
"a store of knowledge that promises to give man a
better life than any he has known," no one complained
that he had left out women. Lintonwas
using the linguistic conventions of his time; he implicitly
included women in allhis references to
men. Or did he?
When feminists first began questioningthe use
of masculinepronouns and nouns whenever gender
was ambiguous,their concerns were often
viewed as petty, even silly. At most, many felt the
issuewas one of women having their feelings hurt,
their egosbruised.But be honest: When you read
Linton's words, what did you picture? An amorphous,
genderlesshuman being, a hermaphrodite
at once male and female, or a male persona?
In a similar way, researcherslooking at the social
world from a feministparadigmhave called attention
to aspects of sociallife that are not revealed
by other paradigms. In part, feminist theory and researchhave
focused on gender differences and how
they relate to the rest of social organization. These
lines ofinquiry have drawn attention to the oppression
of women in many societies, which in
turn has shed light on oppression generally.
Feminist paradigms have also challengedthe
prevailingnotions concerning consensus in society.
Most descriptionsof the predominant beliefs, values,
and norms of a societyare written by people
representing onlyportions of society.In the United
States, for example, such analyseshave typically
been written by middle-class white men-not surprisingly,they
have written about the beliefs, values,
and norms they themselves share. Though
George HerbertMead spoke of the "generalized
other" that each of us becomes aware of and can
"take the role of," feministparadigms question
whether such a generalized other even exists.
Further, whereas Mead used the example of
learning to play baseballto illustrate how we learn
about the generalized other, Janet Lever's research
suggeststhat understanding the experience of boys
may tell us little about girls.
Girls' play and games are very different. They
are mostly spontaneous, imaginative, and free
of structure or rules. Turn-taldng activities
like jumprope may be played without setting
explicitgoals. Girls have far less experience
with interpersonal competition. The style of
their competitionis indirect, rather than face
to face, individualrather than team affiliated.
Leadershiproles are either missing or randomly
filled.
(Lever1986:86)
Socialresearchers' growing recognitionof the
generalintellectual differencesbetween men and
women led the psychologist Mary Field Belenlcy
and her colleagues to speak of Wonzelz'sWaysof
ICnowilzg (1986).In-depth interviewswith 45
women led the researchersto distinguish five perspectives
on knowing that should challenge the
view ofinquiry as obvious and straightforward:
Silence:Somewomen, especially early in life,
feel themselves isolated from tlle world of knowledge,
their lives largely determined by external
authorities.
Received ktzowledge:From this perspective, women
feel themselves capable of taking in and holding
Imowledge originatingwith external authorities.
Subjective ktzowledge:This perspective opens up the
possibility of personal, subjectivelmowledge, in-
cludingintuition.
Placedt~lulk~zowledge:Somewomen feel they have
mastered the ways of gaining lmowledge through
objective procedures.
Constr-zlctedklzowledge:The authors describethis perspective
as "a position in which women view all
knowledge as contextual, experience themselves
as creators of lmowledge, and value both subjective
and objectivestrategiesfor lmowing" (Belenlcy
et al. 1986:15).
"Constructedlmowledge" is particularlyinterestingin
the context of paradigms. The positivistic
paradigm of Comte would have a place neither for
"subjectiveknowledge" nor for the idea that truth
might vary accordingto its context. The ethnomethodologicalparadigm,
on the other hand,
would accommodate these ideas.
RationalObjectivityReconsidered
We began this discussion of paradigms with Comte's
assertion that society can be studiedrationally
and objectively.Since his time, the growth of science
and technology,together with the relative
decline of superstition,have put rationalitymore
and more in tlle center of social life. As fundamental
as rationality is to most of us, however, some
contemporaryscholarshave raised questions
about it.
For example,positivistic social scieritistshave
sometimes erred in assumingthat social reality can
FIGURE 2-1
TheAsch Experiment
be explained in rationalterms because humans always
act rationally. I'm sure your own experience
offers ample evidence to the contrary.Yet many
modern economicmodels fundamentally assume
that people willmalte rational choicesin the economic
sector:They will choose the highest-paying
job, pay the lowest price, and so forth. This ass&nption
ignores the power of tradition, loyalty,
image, and other factorsthat competewith reason
and calculationin determininghuman behavior.
A more sophisticatedpositivism would assert
that we can rationally understand and predict even
nonrational behavior. An exampleis the famous
"Asch Experiment" (Asch 1958).In this experiment,
a group of subjectsis presented with a set of
lines on a screen and asked to identify the two lines
that are equal in length.
Imagine yourself a subjectin such an experiment.
You are sittingin the front row of a classroom
in a group of six subjects.A set of lines is projected
on tile wall in front of you (seeFigure 2-1).
The experimenter asks each of you, one at a time,
to identify the line to the right (A,B, or C)that
matches the length of line X. The correct answer
(B)is pretty obviousto you. To your surprise,however,
you find that all the other subjects agree on a
differentanswer!
The experimenter announces that all but one
of the group has gotten the correctanswer. Since
you are the only one who chose B, this amounts to
saying that you've gotten it wrong. Then a new set
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
50 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,and SocialResearch
of lines is presented, and you have the same experience.
What seemsto be the obviously correct answer
is said by everyone else to be wrong.
As it turns out, of course, you are the only real
subjectin this experiment-all the others areworking
with the experimenter.The purpose of the experiment
is to seewhether you willbe swayedby
public pressure to go alongwith the incorrectanswer.
In his initial experiments, all of which involved
young men, Asch found that a little over
one-third of his subjects didjust that.
Choosing an obviouslywrong answer in a
simple experiment is an example of nonrational
behavior. But as Asch went on to show, experimenters
can examine the circumstancesthat lead
more or fewer subjectsto go along with the incorrect
answer.For example, in subsequent studies,
Ask varied the size of one group and the number of
"dissenters"who chose the "wrong" (thatis, the
correct)answer. Thus, it is possible to study nonrational
behavior rationally and scientifically.
More radically,we can question whether social
life abidesby rationalprinciples at all. In the pllysical
sciences, developments such as chaos theory,
fuzzy logic, and complexityhave suggested that we
may need to rethink fundamentallythe orderliness
of events in the physical world. Certainlythe social
world might be no tidier than the world of physics.
The contemporarychallenge to positivism,
however, goes beyond the question of whether
people behave rationally. In part, the criticism of
positivism challengesthe idea that scientists can be
as objective as the positivisticideal assumes.Most
scientists would agree that personal feelings can
and do influencethe problems scientists chooseto
study, what they choose to observe, and the conclusionsthey
draw from their observations.
There is an even more radical critique of the
ideal of objectivity.As we glimpsed in the discussions
of feminismand ethnomethodology,some
contemporaryresearchers suggest that subjectivity
might actually be preferable in some situations.
Let's take a moment to return to the dialectic of
subjectivity and objectivity.
To be,^, all our experiences are inescapably
subjective. There is no way out. We can see only
through our own eyes, and anythingpeculiar to
our eyes will shapewhat we see.We can hear
things onlythe way our partidar ears and brain
transmit and interpret sound waves. You and I, to
some extent, hear and see different realities.And
both of us experience quite different physical "realities"
than, say, do bats. In what to us is total darkness,
a bat "sees"thingslike flying insectsby emitting
a sound we humans can't hear. The reflection
of the bat's sound creates a "soundpicture"precise
enough for the bat to home in on the movinginsect
and snatchit up in its teeth. In a similar vein,
scientistson the planet Xandu might developtheories
of the physical world based on a sensory apparatus
that we humans can't even imagine. Maybe
they see X rays or hear colors.
Despite the inescapable subjectivityof our experience,
we humans seem to be wired to seek an
agreement on what is really real, what is objectively
so. Objectivityis a conceptual attempt to get
beyond our individualviews. It is ultimately a matter
of communication, as you and I attempt to find
a commonground in our subjective experiences.
Whenever we succeed in our search,we saywe are
dealingwith objective reality. This is the agreement
reality discussed in Chapter 1.
Whereas our subjectivityis individual, our
searchfor objectivity is social.This is true in all aspects
of life, notjust in science.Whileyou and Iprefer
differentfoods,we must agree to some extent on
what is fit to eat and what is not, or else there could
be no restaurantsor grocery stores.The same argument
couldbe made regardingevery other form of
consumption.Without agreement reality, there
couldbe no movies or television, no sports.
Socialscientists as well have foundbenefits in
the concept of a sociallyagreed-uponobjective reality.
As people seekto impose order on their experience
oflife, they find it useful to pursue this goal
as a collective venture. What are the causes and
cues ofprejudice? Worldngtogether, socialresearchershave
uncovered some answers that hold
up to intersubjective scrutiny. Whatever your subjective
experience of things, for example, you can
discover for yourself that as education increases,
prejudice generallytends to decrease.Because each
of us can discoverthis independently, we say that it
is objetively true.
From the seventeenth century through the
middle of the twentieth, however, the belief in an
objectivereality that was independent of individual
perceptionspredominated in science.For the most
part, it was not simply held as a usefulparadigm
but as The Truth. The term positivisnz has generally
representedthe belief in a logically ordered, objective
reality that we can come to lmow better and
better through science.This is the view chalIenged
today by the postmodernists and others.
Some say that the ideal of objectivityconceals
as much as it reveals. As we saw earlier,in years
past much of what was regarded as objectivityin
Western socialscience was actually an agreement
primarily amongwhite, middle-classEuropean
men. Equally real experiences common to women,
to ethnicminorities, to non-Western cultures,or to
the poor were not necessarily represented in that
reality.
Thus, early anthropologistsare now criticized
for often makingmodern, Westernized "sense" out
of the beliefs and practicesof nonliterate tribes
around the world, sometimesby portraying their
subjects as superstitious savages.We often call
orally transmittedbeliefs about the distant past
"creationmyth," whereas we speak of our own beliefs
as "history."Increasinglytoday, there is a demand
to End the native logicby which various
peoples make sense out of life and to understand it
on its own terms.
Ultimately, we will never be able to distinguish
completelybetween an objective reality and our
subjective experience. We cannot know whether
our conceptscorrespond to an objective reality or
are simplyuseful in allowing us to predict and control
our environment. So desperate is our need to
know what is really real, however, that both positivists
and postmodernists are sometimesdrawn
into the beliefthat their own view is real and true.
There is a dual irony in this. On the one hand, the
positivist's belief that science precisely mirrors the
objectiveworld must ultimately be based on faith;
it cannotbe proven by "objective" science, since
that's precisely what's at issue. And the postmodernists,who
say nothing is objectivelyso and
everythingis ultimately subjective,do at least feel
that that is really the way things are.
ElementsofSocialTheory .51
Fortunately,as social researchers we are not
forced to align ourselves entirely with either of
these approaches.Instead, we can treat them as .
two distinct arrows in our quiver. Each approach
compensatesforthe weaknesses of the other by
suggestingcomplementary perspectives that can
produce useful lines of inquiry.
In summary, a rich variev of theoreticalparadigms
can be brought to bear on the study of social
life.With each of these fundamental frames of reference,
useful theories can be constructed. We turn
now to some ofthe issues involved in theory construction,
which are ofinterest and use to all social
researchers,from positivists to postmodernistsand
allthose in between.
Elementsof SocialTheony
As we have seen, paradigms are generalframeworks
or viewpoints:literally "points from which to
view." They provide ways of looking at life and are
5
groundedin sets of assumptions about the nature
of reality.
Theories,by contrast, are systematicsets of
interrelatedstatementsintended to explain some
aspect of sociallife.Thus, theoriesflesh out and
specifyparadigms. Whereas a paradigm offers a
way of looking, a theory aims at explainingwhat
we see.
Let's look a little more deliberatelynow at some
of the elements of a theory. As I mentioned in
Chapter 1,science is based on observation. In social
research, observatioiz typically refers to seeing,
hearing, and-less commonly-touching. A correspondingidea
isfact. Although for philosophers
"fact"is as complex a notion as "reality," social
scientists generally use it to refer to some phenomenon
that has been observed.It is a fact, for
example,that Bill Clinton defeated RobertDole in
the 1996presidentialelection.
Scientistsaspire to organizemany facts under
"rules" called laws.Abraham Icaplan (1964:91) defines
laws as universal generalizationsabout classes
of facts.The law of gravity is a classicexample:
Bodies are attracted to each other in proportion to
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
52 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,and Social Research
their masses and in inverse proportion to the distance
separatingthem.
Laws must be t d y universal, however, not
merely accidentalpatterns found among a specific
set of facts.It is a fact, ICaplanpoints out (1964:92),
that in each of the U.S.presidential electionsfrom
1920to 1960,the major candidatewith the longest
name won. That is not a law, however, as shownby
the next three elections.The earlier pattern was a
coincidence.
Sometimes calledprinciples, laws are important
statementsabout what is so. We speak of them as
being "discovered,"granting,of course,that our
paradigms affect what we choose to look for and
what we see. Laws in and of themselves do not
explain anything.Theyjust summarizethe way
things are.Explanationis a function of theory, as
we'll see shortly.
There are no sodal scientificlawsthat claimthe
universal certainty of those of the natural sciences.
Socialscientists debate among themselves whether
suchlawswi!.l ever be discovered.Perhaps social
life essentially doesnot abideby invariant laws.
This does not mean that sociallife is so chaoticas
to defy prediction and explanation.As we saw in
Chapter 1, socialbehavior falls into patterns, and
those patterns very often make perfect sense, although
we may have to lookbelow the surfaceto
find the logic.
As I just indicated, laws should not be confused
with theories.Whereas a law is an observedregularity,
a tlzeoryis a systematicexplanationfor observations
that relate to a particular aspect of life.For
example, someonemight offer a theory of juvenile
delinquency, prejudice, or political revolution.
Theories explain observationsby means of concepts.Jonathan
Turner (1989:5) calls concepts the
"basicbuildingblocks of theory." Conceptsare abstract
elementsrepresentingclasses of phenomena
within the field of study. The conceptsrelevant to
a theory ofjuvenile delinquency,for example, indude
"juvenile" and "delinquency,"for starters.A
"peer group1'--the people you hang around with
and identifywith-is another relevant concept.
"Socialclass" and "ethnicity"are undoubtedly relevant
conceptsin a theory of juvenile delinquency.
"Schoolperformance" might alsobe relevant.
A variable is a specialldnd of concept.As we
saw in Chapter 1, each variable comprises a set of
attributes; thus, delinquency,in the simplestcase,
is made up of delinquent and not delinquent. A
theory of delinquency would aim at explaining
why somejuveniles are delinquent and others
are not.
Axiovrzs or postulates are fundamental assertions,
taken to be true, on which a theory is grounded.In
a theory of juvenile delinquency,we might begin
with axioms such as "Everyone desires material
comforts" and "The ability to obtain material comforts
legally is greater for the wealthy than for the
poor."From them we might proceed to proposih
n s , specitic conclusions about the relationships
among concepts that are derivedfrom the axiomatic
groundwork.From our beginning axioms
aboutjuvenile delinquency, for example, we might
reasonably formulatethe proposition that poor
youths are more likely to break the law to gain material
comforts than are rich youths.
This proposition,incidentally, accordswith
Robert Merton's classicattempt to accountfor deviance
in society. Merton (1957:139-57) spolce of
the agreed-uponmeans and ends of a society.In
Merton's model, nondeviantsare those who share
the societal agreementas to desiredends (such as
a new car) and the means prescribedfor achieving
them (suchas to buy it).One type of deviantMerton
calledthis type the "innovator"-agrees
on the desiredend but does not have access to the
presaibed means for achievingit. Innovatorsfind
another method, such as crime, of getting the desired
end.
From propositions,in turn, we can derive hypotlzeses.
A hypothesisis a specified testable expectation
about empiricalreality that followsfrom
a more general proposition.Thus, a researcher
might formulatethe hypothesis, "Poor youths
have higher delinquency rates than rich youths."
Research is designed to test hypotheses. In other
words, research will support (orfailto support)
a theory only indirectly-by testing speciiic
hypotheses that are derived from theories and
propositions.
Let's look more clearly at how theory and research
come together.
Two LogicalSystems Revisited
In Chapter 1,I introduced deductive and inductive
reasoning,with a promise that we would return to
them later. It's later.
TheTraditionalModelofscience
Most of us have a somewhatidealizedpicture of
"the scientificmethod that we've gained from science
insimction ever since elementary school, especially
in the physical sciences.Althoughthis traditionalmodel
of science tells only a part of the
story,it's helpfulto understand its logic.
There are three main elements in the traditional
model of science: theory, operationalization,
and observation.At this point we're already well
acquainted with the idea of theory. Accordingto
the traditional model of science, scientistsbegin
with a thing, from which they derive testable hypotheses.
So, for example, as socialscientists we
might have a theory about the causes of juvenile
delinquency.Let's assume that we have arrived at
the hypothesis that delinquencyis inverselyrelated
to social class.That is, as social class goes up, delinquency
goes down.
To test any hypothesis, we must specifythe
meanings of all the variables involvedin it in observational
turns. In the present case, the variables
are social class and delinquency. To give these terms
s p e a cmeaning, we might define delinquencyas
"beingarrestedfor a crime," "beingconvictedof a
crime," or in some other plausible way, while social
class might be specifiedin terms offamilyincome
for the purposes of this particular study.
Once we have defined our variables, we need
to specify how we'll measure them. (Recallfrom
Chapter 1&at science, in the classicalideal, depends
on measurable observations.)Operationalizationliterallymeans
speclfylngthe exact operations
involved in measuring a variable.There are
many ways we can attempt to test our hypothesis,
each of which allows for differentways of measuring
our variables.
For simplicity, let's assume we are planning to
conduct a survey of high schoolstudents. We might
Two Logical Systems Revisited . 53
operationalizedelinquencyin the form of the question
"Haveyou ever stolenanything?"Those who
answer "yes"will be classified as delinquentsin
our stuay;those who say "no"will be classsed
as nondelinquents. Similarly,we might operationalize
social class by asldng respondents, "What
was your family's income last year?" and providing
them with a set of family income categories: under
$10,000; $10,000-$24,999; $25,000-$49,999; and
$50,000and above.
At this point someone might object that "delinquency"
can mean somethingmore or different
fromhaving stolen something at one time or another,
or that socialclass isn't necessarilyexactly
the same as familyincome. Someparents might
think body piercing is a sign of delinquency even if
their children don't steal, and to some "socialclass"
might include an element of prestige or community
standingas well as how much money a family has.
For the researcher testing a hypothesis, however,
the meaning ofvariablesis exactlyand only what
the operational definition specifies.
C
In this respect, scientists are very much like
HumptyDumpty in Lewis Carroll'sAlice'sAdventures
in wonderland. "When 1use a word," Humpty
Dumpty tells Alice, "it meansjust what I choose it
to mean-neither more nor less."
"The questionis,"Alice replies, "whether you
can make words mean so many differentthings." To
which Humpty Dumpty responds, "The questionis,
which is to be master-that's all."
Scientistshave to be "masters" of their operational
definitionsfor the sake of precision in observation,measurement,
and communication.Otherwise,
we would never lmow whether a study that
contradictedours did so only because it used a different
set ofprocedures to measure one of the variables
and thus changedthe meaning of the hypothesisbeing
tested. Of course, this also means
that to evaluatea study's conclusions about juvenile
delinquencyand social class, or any other variables,we
need to know how those variables were
operationalized.
The way we have operationalizedthe variables
in our imaginary study could be open to other
problems, however. Perhaps some respondents will
lie about having stolen anything, in which cases
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
54 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,andSocialResearch
Two logicalSystemsRevisited .55
we'll misclasslfythem as nondelinquent. Some respondentswill
not laow their familyincomes and
wdl give mistalcen answers; others may be embarrassed
and lie.We'll considerissueslike these in detail
in Part 2.
Our operationalizedhypothesisnow is that the
highest incidence of delinquentswill be found
amongrespondentswho selectthe lowestfamily
income category (under $10,000);a lower percentage
of delinquentswill be found in the $10,000$24,999category;stillfewer
delinquentswill be
found in the $25,000-$49,999 category; and the
lowestpercentage of delinquentswillbe found in
the $50,000-and-abovecategory.Now we're ready
for the h a l step in the traditionalmodel of science-observation.
Having developedtheoretical
darity and specificexpectations, and having created
a strategyfor loolcing, allthat remains is to
loolc at the way things actually are.
Let's suppose our survey produced the following
data:
Percentagedelinquent--
Under$10,000 20
$10,000-$24,999 15
$25,000-$49,999 10
$50,000 and above 5
Observationsproducing such data would confirm
our hypothesis. But suppose our findingswere as
follows:
Percentagedelinquent
Under$10,000 15
$10,000-$24,999 15
$25,000-$49,999 15
$50,000 andabove 15
These findingswould discodrm our hypothesis
regardingfamily income and delinquency.DisconErmability-the
possibilitythat observationsmay
not support our expectations-is an essentialquality
in any hypothesis. In other words, if there is no
chance that our hypothesiswillbe discordlrmed,it
hasn't said an-g meaningfd.
For example, the hypothesisthat "juvenile
delinquents" commit more crimes than do "nonFIGURE
2-2
'TheTraditionalImageof Science
I I
THEORETICALUNDERSTANDING
rpY c a u s L Y I
( HYPOTHESIS
II x= f ( y ) Theoretical expectation 1
Operationalization
x= f(y) Testablehypothesis
delinquents" do cannot possibly be disconfirmed,
because criminalbehavior is intrinsicto the notion
of delinquency.Even if we recognize that
someyoung people commit crimes without being
caught and labeled as delinquents,they couldn't
threaten our hypothesis, since our observations
would lead us to concludethey were law-abiding
nondelinquents.
Figure 2-2 provides a schematicdiagram of the
traditional model of scienl3k inquiry.In it we see
the researcherbeginning with an interest in a phenomenon
(suchasjuvenile delinquency).Next
comes the development of a theoreticalunderstanding,in
this case that a single concept (such as
socialclass)might explain others.The theoretical
considerations result in an expectationabout what
shouldbe observedif the theory is correct. The notationX
= f(Y) is a conventionalway of sayingthat
X (forexample, delinquency)is a function of (depends
on) Y (forexample, social class).At that
level, however, X and Ystillhave rather general
meanings that could give rise to quite differentobservations
and measurements. Operationalization
speaes the procedures that will be used to measure
the variables. The lowercasexin Pigure 2-2, for
example,is a precisely measurableindicator of capitalX.
This operationalizationprocess results in the
formation of a testable hypothesis: for example,
self-reportedtheft is a function of familyincome.
Observationsaimed at finding out whether this
statementaccuratelydesaibes reality are part of
what is typically called Izypothesistesting. (Seethe
box "Hintsfor StatingHypotheses"for more on the
process of formulatinghypotheses.)
DeductiveandInductiveReasoning:
A CaseIllustration
As you probably recognized, the traditionalmodel
of sciencejust described is a nice example of deductive
reasoning:Prom a generaltheoreticalunderstanding,the
researcherderives (deduces)an expectation
and hally a testable hypothesis. This
picture is tidy, but in reality science uses inductive
reasoning as well. Let's considera real research
example as a vehicle forcomparingthe deductive
and inductive linkagesbetween theory and research.Years
ago, Charles Glock,Benjamin Ringer,
and 1(1967)set out to discoverwhat caused differing
levels of church involvement among U.S.
Episcopalians.A number of theoreticalor quasitheoretical
positions suggestedpossible answers.
I'll focuson only one here: what we came to call
the "ComfortHypothesis."
In part, we took our lead from the Christianinjunction
to care for "the halt, the lame, and the
blind and those who are "weary and heavy laden."
At the same time, ironically,we noted the Marxist
assertionthat religion is an "opiatefor the masses."
Given both, it made sense to expect the following,
which was our hypothesis: "Parishionerswhose life
situationsmost deprive them of satisfactionand
fulfillmentin the secular society turn to the church
for comfort and substituterewards" (Glocket al.,
1967:107-8).
Having framedthis generalhypothesis, we set
about testing it.Were those deprived of satisfaction
in the secularsocietyin fact more religious than
those who received more satisfactionfrom the secular
society?To answer this, we needed to distinguish
who was deprived.The questionnaire,which
was constructedfor the purpose of testing the Comfort
Hypothesis,included items that seemed to offer
indicatorsof whether parishioners were relatively
deprivedor gratified in secularsociety.
To start, we reasoned that men enjoymore status
than women in our generallymale-dominated
society. Though hardly novel, this conclusionlaid
the groundworkfor testing the Comfort Hypothesis.Ifwe
were correct in our hypothesis, women
shouldappear more religiousthan men. Once the
survey data had been collected and analyzed, our
expectationabout gender and religionwas clearly
c o ~ m e d .On three separate measures of religious
involvement-ritual (suchas church attendance),
organizational(suchas belongingto church organizations),and
intellectual (suchas reading church
publications)-women were more religious than
I
men. On our overallmeasure, women scored
50 percent higher than men.
In another test of the Comfort Hypothesis, we
reasoned that in a youth-oriented society,old
people would be more deprived of secular gratification
than would the young. Once again, our expectation
was confirmedby the data. The oldest
parishionerswere more religious than the middleaged,
who were more religiousthan young adults.
Social class-measured by educationand income-afforded
another test of the Comfort Hypothesis.
Once again, the test was successful.Those
with low socialstatus were more involvedin the
church than those with high socialstatus.
The hypothesis was even confirmed in a test
that went against everyone's commonsense expectations.
Despite churchposters showing worshipful
young families and bearing the slogan, "The Family
That Prays Together StaysTogether,"the Comfort
Hypothesis suggested that parishionerswho were
married and had children-the clearAmerican
ideal at that time-would enjoy seculargratification
in that regard. As a consequence, they shouldbe
less religiousthan those who lacked one or both
family components.Thus, we hypothesized that
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
56 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,and SocialResearch TWOLogicalSystemsRevisited .57
Inthis hypothesis,note that both of the the oppositeprediction,that men are
states a relationship betweenthe two vari- variables (age,the independentvariable or
DepartmentofSociology, moresupportivethan women are, if you
able5 (theonethat fills intheUblank"and likelyl'cause,"and SWL,the dependentvari-WashingtonStoteUniversity wished.)
"attitud& toward women's liberationU).You ableorlikel~~effect")rangefrom low to high. 4. Equally legitimatewould beNWomenare
needto do so in aprecisemanner so that You -thisfeature of the two variables is what al- more likelyto support women's liberaA
hypothesisisthe basic statement thatis can determineclearlywhether the hypothe- lowsYOU to use"negatively"(ornpositively") tion than are men." (Notethe needforthe
tested in research.Typicallya hypothesis sis is supportedor not when you examinethe to describethe relationship. second"are,"or you could be construed
states a relationshipbetweentwo variables. results (inthis case, most likelythe results ofa Noticewhat happensifyou hypothesizea as hypothesizingthat women support
(~lthoughit is possibleto use morethan two survey). relationship betweengender and SWL.Since women's liberationmorethan they supvariables,you
should stickto two for now.) The key is to word the hypothesiscare- gender is a nominalvariable (asyou'll learn Port men-not quite the same idea.)
Becausea hypothesismakes a prediction fully so that the prediction it makesis quite in Chapter 5)it does not rangefrom lowto
aboutthe relationshipbetweenthe two vari- cleartoyou as well as others.If you use age, high-people are either male or female (the The aboveexamples hypothesizedrelaables,it
must betestable so You can deter- notethatsayingnAgeis relatedto two attributesof the variablegender).Conse- tionships betweenal'characteristic"(age or
mine if the prediction is right or Wrong when towardwomen's liberationUdoesnot say pre- quentiy,you must be careful in stating the gender) and an"orientation"(attitudes toyou
examinethe results obtained inyour cisely how you think thetwo are related (in hypothesis unambiguously: ward women's liberation).Becausethe causal
study.A hypothesism~ustbe stated in an un- fact,the only way this hypothesis could be order is pretty clear (obviouslyageand genambiguous
mannerto beclearlytestable. falsified is if you fail to find astatistically sig-
1. "Gender is positively(or negatively) re- der come before attitudes,and are less alterWhat
follows are suggestionsfor developing nificantrelationshipof anytype betweenage
latedto SWL"isnot an adequatehypothe- able),we could statethe hypothesesas I've
testable hypotheses. sis, becauseitdoesn't specify howyou
and attitudestoward women's liberation).In done,and everyone would assumethat we
Assumeyou have an interestintrying to this case acouple of steps are necessary.You
expect gender to be relatedto SWL- Mierestatingcausal hypotheses.
predict some phenomenonsuch asl'attitudes havetwo options:
that is1whetherYOU think menor women $ ~inally,youmay run across referencesto
toward women's liberation,"andthat you will be moresupportive of women's the nullhypothesis, especiallyin statistics.
can measuresuch attitudes on acontinuum 1. "Age is relatedto attitudestoward liberation. Such a hypothesis predicts no relationship
rangingfroml'opposed to women's libera- women's liberation,with younger adults 2. Itis tempting to say something like (technically, no statisticallysignificantrelationUto"neutral"to
"supportiveof women's beingmoresupportivethan older adults." "Women are positivelyrelatedto SWL," tionship) betweenthe two variables, and it
liberation."Also assumethat, lackingathe- (Or,you could statethe opposite,if you butthis reallydoesn't work becausefe- is always implicit in testing hypotheses.Basiory,yourll
rely on"hunchesVtocome up with believedolder peopleare likelyto be male is only an attribute,not afull vari- tally,ifyou have hypothesizedapositive (or
variables that might be relatedto attitudes moresupportive.) able (genderis the variable). . negative) relationship,you are hopingthat
toward women's liberation. 2. "Age is negatively relatedto support for 3. "Gender is relatedto SWL, with women the resultswill allowyou to rejectthe null
In asense,you can thinkof hypothesis women's liberation."Note herethat I being f ~ ~ o r esupportivethan men"would hypothesisand verify your hypothesized
constructionas acase of filling in the blank: specifytlsupport"forwomen's liberation be my recommendation.Or,you could relationship.
is relatedto attitudestoward women's (sWL)andthen predict a negative rela- say,"with men being less supportivethan
women,"which makesthe identicalprediction.
(Of course,you could also make
parishioners who were both single and childless
shouldbe the most religious; those with either
spouse or child shouldbe somewhatless religious;
and those married with children-representing the
idealpictured on allthose posters-should be least
religious of all.That's exactlywhat we found.
Findy, the ComfortHypothesiswould suggest
that the various ldnds of secular deprivation should
be cumulative:Those with allthe characteristicsassociatedwit11deprivation
should be the most religious;
those witl~none shouldbe the least. When
we combinedthe four individualmeasures of deprivation
into a composite measure, the theoretical
expectationwas exactly confirmed. Comparingthe
two extremes,we found that single,childless, old,
lower-classfemaleparishioners scored more than
three times as high on the measure of church involvement
than did young, married, upper-classfathers.
Thus was the ComfortHypothesis confirmed.
I like t l ~ sresearch example because it so clearly
illustratesthe logic of the deductivemodel. Beginning
with general, theoreticalexpectations about
the impact of social deprivation on church involvement,
it was possible to derive concrete hypotheses
linlldng specificmeasurablevariables, such as age
and churchattendance.The actual empirical data
couldthen be analyzed to determine whether the
deductive expectationswere supportedby empirical
reality.
1saythis example showshow it was possible
to do it that way, but, alas,I've been fibbiig. To tell
the tmth, aIthoughwe began with an interest in
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
58 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,andSocial Research TWOLogicalSystemsRevisited .59
discoveringwhat causedvariations in churchinvolvementamong
Episcopalians, we didn't actually
begin with a ComfortHypothesis,or any other hypothesis
for that matter. (Inthe interest of further
honesty, Glock and Ringerinitiatedthe study, and I
joined it years after the data had been collected.)A
questionnairewas designedto collect information
that might shed some light on why some parishionersparticipated
in the church more than others,
but the constructionof the questionnairewas not
guidedby anyprecise, deductive theory. Once the
data were collected, the task of explaining differencesin
religiositybegan with an analysis of variables
that have a wide impact on people's lives,including
gender, age, socialclass, and familystatus.
Each of these four variableswas found to relate
stronglyto churchinvolvement,in the ways already
described. Indeed, they had a cumulative effect,
also already described. Rather than being good
news, however, thispresented a dilemma.
Glock recalls discussinghis ikdings with colleagues
overlunch at the Columbiafaculty club.
Once he had displayed the tables illustratingthe
impact of each individualvariable as well as their
powerful compositeeffect, a colleagueasked, "What
does it allmean, Charlie?" Glock was at a loss. Why
were those variables so slxonglyrelated to church
involvement?
That questionlaunched a process of reasoning
about what the severalvariables had in common,
aside from their impact on religiosity. Eventually
we saw that each of the four variables also reflected
differeerelztialstatus in the secularsociety. He then had the
thought that perhaps the issue of comfortwas involved.
Thus, the inductiveprocess had moved
from conaete observationsto a generaltheoretical
explanation.
A GraphicContrast
As the preceding case illustration shows, theory
and research can usefully be done both inductively
and deductively. Figure 2-3 shows a graphic comparison
of the two approachesappliedto an inquiry
into study habits and performance on exams.In
both cases, we are interested in the relationshipbetween
the number of hours spent studying for an
exam and the grade earned on that exam. Using
the deductive method, we would begin by examining
the matter logically.Doingwell on an exam
reflects a student's ability to recall and manipulate
information. Both of these abilitiesshouldbe increased
by exposureto the informationbefore the
exam. In thisfashion,we would arrive at a hypothesis
suggestinga positive relationshipbetween the
number of hours spent studyingand the grade
earned onthe exam. We say positivebecause we
expect gradesto increase as the hours of studying
inaease. Ifinaeased fioursproduced deaeased
grades, that would be called a negative, or inverse,
relationship.The hypothesis is representedby the
line in part l(a)of Figure 2-3.
Our next step would be to make observations
relevant to testing our hypothesis. The shaded area
in part I(b) of the figure represents perhaps hundreds
of observations of different students,noting
how many hours they studied and what grades
they received. Finally, inpart 1(c),we compare the
hypothesis and the observations. Because observations
in the real world seldomif ever match our expectationsperfectly,we
must decidewhether the
match is close enough to consider the hypothesis
conllrmed. put differently,can we concludethat
the llypothesis describesthe generalpattern that
exists, grantingsome variationsin real life? Sometimes,
answering this question necessitates methods
of statisticalanalysis, which will be discussed in
Part 4.
Now suppose we used the inductivemethod
to addressthe sameresearch question.In this case,
we would begin with a set of observations, as in
part 2(a)of Figure 2-3. Curiousabout the relationshipbetween
hours spent studyingand grades
earned,we might simply arrange to collect relevant
data.Then we'd loolr for a pattern that best
represented or summarized our observations.In
part 2(b)of the figure,the patten is shown as
a curvedline running through the center of our
observations.
The pattern found amongthe points in this
case suggeststhat with 1to 15hours of studying,
each additionalhour generally produces a higher
grade on the exam. With 15 to about 25 hours,
FIGURE 2-3
DeductiveandInductiveMethods
1. DeductiveMethod
I
2. lnductive Method
(a) Hypothesis
100 r
(a) Observations
I 100r
Hours studying
(b) Observations
Hours studying
(b) Finding a pattern
Hours studying
i
I (c) Accept or reject hypothesis?
I
Hours studying i
(c) Tentativeconclusion I
Hours studying 1 Hours studying
however, more study seems to slightlylower the
grade. Studyingmore than 25 hours, on the other
hand, results in a return to the initial pattern: More
hours produce higher grades.Using the inductive
method, then, we end up with a tentative conclusion
about the pattern of the relationship between
the two variables. The conclusionis tentativebecause
the observations we have made cannot be
taken as a test of the pattern-those observations
are the source of the pattern we've created.
As I discussed in Chapter 1,inactual practice,
theory and research interact through a never ending
alternationof deduction and induction.A good
example is the classicwork of Emile Durldeim on
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
60 .Chapter2: Paradigms,Theory,andSocial Research DeductiveTheory Construction .61
suicide ([I8971 1951).When Durkheim pored over
table after table of official statistics on suicide rates
in differentareas, he was struckby the fact that
Protestantcountriesconsistently had higher suicide
rates than did Catholic ones. Why should that be
the case? His initial observationsled him to create
inductively a theory of religion, socialintegration,
anomie,and suicide.His theoretical explanations in
turn led deductivelyto further hypothesesand further
observations.
Insummary,the scientificnorm of logical reasoningprovides
a two-way bridgebetween theory
and research. Scientificinquiryin practice typically
involves alternatingbetween deductionandinduction.
Both methodsinvolve an interplayof logic
and observation.And both are routes to the constructionof
socialtheories.
Althoughboth inductiveand deductive methods
are valid in scientificinquiry,individualsmay
feel more comfortablewith one approachthan the
other. Consider this exchangein Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle's story "A Scandalin Bohemia,"as Sherlock
Holmes answers Dr. Watson's inquiry (Doyle [I8911
1892:13):
"Whatdo you imaginethat it means?"
"Ihave no data yet. It is a capitalmistake
to theorisebefore one has data.Insensibly one
begins to twist factsto suittheories,instead of
theoriesto suit facts."
Somesocial scientistswould more or less agree
with this inductive position, while otherswould
take a more deductive stance.Most,however,concede
the legitimacy of both approaches.
With this understanding of the deductive and
inductive links between theory and researchin
hand, let's now delve a little more deeply into how
theories are constructed using these two different
approaches.
DeductiveTheory Construction
To see what is involvedin deductive theory constructionand
hypothesis testing, let's imagine that
17ouare going to constructa deductive theory. How
would you go aboutit?
GettingStarted
The iirst stepin deductivetheory constructionis
to pick a topicthat interestsyou. The topic can
be very broad, such as "Whatis the structure of
society?"or it can be narrower, as in "Whydo
people support or opposethe idea of a woman's
right to an abortion?"Whatever the topic,it should
be somethingyou're interestedin understanding
and explaining.
Once you've picked your topic, the next step
is to undertalte an inventory of what is already
known or thought aboutit. In part, this means
writing down your own observationsand ideas.Beyond
that, it means learning what other scholars
have said about it. You can talk to other people,
and you'll want to read the scholarly literature on
the topic. AppendixA provides guidelines for using
the library-you'll likely spend a lot of time there.
Your preliminary research will probably uncover
consistentpatterns discoveredby prior scholars.For
example, religious and political variables
will stand out as importantdeterminants of attitudes
about abortion.Findingssuch asthesewillbe
very useful to you in creating your own theory.
Ln thisprocess, don't overlookthe value of introspection.
Whenever we can look at our own
personal processes-including reactions, fears, and
prejudices-we may gain important insights into
human behavior in general. I don't mean to say
that everyone tilinkslike you or me, but introspection
can provide a useful source of insightsthat can
inform our inquiries.
ConstructingYourTheory
Now that you've reviewedprevious work on the
topic, you're ready to begin constructingyour theory.Although
theory construction is not a lockstep
affair, the process generallyinvolves somethinglike
the following steps.
1. Speafythe topic.
2. Specify the range of phenomena your theory
addresses.Will your theory applyto allof human
sociallife, will it apply only to U.S. citizens,
only to young people, or what?
3. Idencify and specifyyour major concepts and
variables.
4. Find out what is lmown (propositions)about
the relationships amongthose variables.
5. Reason logically from those propositions to the
specifictopicyou are examining.
We've already discussed items (1)through (3),
so let'sfocusnow on (4)and (5).As you i d e n q
the relevant conceptsand discoverwhat has already
been learned about them, you can begin to create
a propositional structurethat explainsthe topic
under study.
Let's look: now at an example of how these
building blocks fit together in deductive theory
constructionand empiricalresearch.
An ExampleofDedurtiveTheory:
DistributiveJustice
Atopic of centralinterest to scholarsis the concept
of distributivejustice-people's perceptions
ofwhether they are being treated fairlyby life,
whether they are getting "their share." Guillermina
Jasso describesthe theory of distributivejustice
more formally, as follows:
The theoryprovides a mathematical desaiption
of the process whereby individuals,reflectingon
their holdings of the goods they
value (suchas beauty,intelligence,orwealth),
compare themselves to others, experiencing
a fundamentalinstantaneousmagnitude of
the justice evaluation (J),which capturestheir
sense of being fairly or unfairly treatedin the
distributions of natural and social goods.
(Jasso1988:11)
Notice that Jasso has assigned a symbolicrepresentation
forher ltey variable: J will stand for
distributivejustice. She does this to support her
intentionof statingher theoryinmathematicalformulas.
Though theories are often expressedmathematically,
we'll not delve too deeplyinto that practice
here.
Jasso indicatesthat there are three ldnds of postulates
in her theory. "The lkst makes explicit the
fundamentalaxiom which representsthe substantive
point of departurefor the theory." She elaborates
as follows:"The theory begins with the receivedAxiom
of Comparison,which formalizesthe
long-held view that a wide class of phenomena, includinghappiness,
self-esteem,and the sense of
distributivejustice, may be understood as the product
of a comparisonprocess" (Jasso 1988:11).
Thus, your sense of whether you are receiving
a "fair" share of the good things of life comes from
comparingyourself with others. If this seems obvious
to you, that's not a shortcomingof the axiom.
Remember, axioms are the taken-for-granted beginningsof
theory.
Jasso continues to do the groundworkfor her
theory. First, she indicatesthat our sense of distributive
justice is a function of "ActualHolding (A)"
and "Comparison Holdings (C)" of some good. Let's
consider money,for example.My sense of justice
in this regard is a function of how much I actually
have comparedwith how much othershave. By
specifying the two componentsof the comparison,
Jasso can use them as variablesin her theory.
.!' Next, Jasso offersa "measurement nlle" that
h e r speaes howthe two variables,A and C, wiII
be conceptualized.Thisstepisneededbecausesome
of the goods to be examinedareconcrete and commonlymeasured
(suchas money),whereas others
arelesstangible (suchasrespect).Theformerkind,
shesays,willbe measured conventionally,whereas
the latterwill be measured "bythe individual's relative
rank. ..withina speciallyselectedcomparison
group."Thetheorywillprovide aformulaformdcingthatmeasurement
(Jasso1988:13).
Jasso continuesin this fashion to introduceadditional
elements,weaving them into mathematical
formulas to be used in derivingpredictions about
the worlhgs of distributivejustice in a variety of
socialsettings.Hereisjust a samplingof where her
theorizingtakes her (1988:14-1 5).
a Other things peing] the same, aperson will
prefer to stealfrom a fellowgroup member
rather than from an outsider.
e The preference to steal from a fellow group
member is more pronounced in poor groups
than in rich groups.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
62 .Chapter2: Paradigrns,Theory,and Social Research
In the case of theft, informants arise only in
cross-grouptheft, in which case they are members
of the thief's group.
e Persons who arrive a week late at summer
camp or for freshman year of college are more
likely to become friendsof persons who play
games of chancethan of persons who play
games of sld.
A societybecomes more vulnerableto deficit
spendingas its wealth increases.
Societiesin which population growthis welcomed
must be societiesin which the set of
valued goods includesat least one quantitygood,
such as wealth.
Jasso's theory leads to many other propositions,
but this sampling should provide a good sense of
where deductive theorizing can take you. To get
a feeling for how she reasons her way to these
propositions,let's look briefly at the logic involved
in two of the propositionsthat relate to theft within
and outside one's group.
e. Other things [being] the same, a person will
preferto stealfroma fellow groupmember
rather than from an outsider.
Beginningwith the assumptionthat thieves
want to maximizetheir relative wealth, aslcyourself
whether that goal would be best servedby
stealingfrom those you compare yourself with or
from outsiders.In each case, stealingwill inaease
your Actual Holdings,but what about your Com-
parisonHoldings?
A moment's thought should suggestthat stealing
from people in your comparisongroup will
lower their holdings, further increasingyour relative
wealth. To simplify,imaginethere are only
two people in your comparisongroup: you and
me. Supposewe each have $100.If you steal $50
from someone outside our group,you will have inaeased
your relativewealth by 50percent compared
with me: $150 versus $100. But if you steal
$50 from me, you will have increased your relative
wealth 200 percent: $150 to my $50. Your goal is
best servedby stealingfrom within the comparison
In the case of theft, informants arise only in
aoss-group theft, in which case they are members
of the thief's group.
Can you see why it would make sense for
informants (1)to arise only in the case of aossgroup
theft and (2)to come from the thief's comparison
group? This proposition again depends on
the fundamental assumption that everyone wants
to inaease his or her relative standing. Suppose
you and I are in the same comparisongroup,but
this time the group contains additionalpeople.
If you stealfrom someoneelse within our comparison
group, my relative standing in the group
does not change. Although your wealth has increased,
the average wealth in the group remains
the same (becausesomeone else's wealth has
decreasedby the same amount). So my relative
standingremains the same. I have no incentive
to inform on you.
If you stealfrom someoneoutside our comparison
group, however, your nefarious incomeinaeases
the total wealth in our group. Now my own
wealth relative to that total is diminished. Sincemy
relative wealth has suffered, I am more likely inform
on you in order to bring an end to your stealing.
Hence,informants arise only in cross-group
theft.
This last deductionalso begins to explain why
these informants come from the thief's own comparison
group.We've just seen how your theft deaeased
my relative standing.How about members
of the other group (otherthan the individualyou
stole from)?Each of them actuallyprofits from the
theft, since you have reducedthe total with which
they compare themselves.Hence, they have no
reason to inform on you. Thus, the theory of distributivejustice
predicts that informants arise from
the thief's own comparisongroup.
Thisbrief peek into Jasso's derivationsshould
give you some sense of the enterprise of deductive
theory. Of course, none of the given predictions
are guaranteedby the theory. The role of research
is to test each of them to determine whether what
makes sense (logic)actually occurs in practice
(observation).
InductiveTl~eoryConstruction
As we have seen, quite often socialscientistsbegin
constructing a theory through the inductive
methodby first observingaspects of sociallife and
then seekingto discoverpatterns that may point to
relatively universal principles. Barney Glaser and
Anseh Strauss (1967)coined the term glatlrzded
theory in reference to this method.
Fieldresearclz-the direct observationof events
in progress-is frequently used to develop theories
through observation.A long and rich anthropological
traditionhas used this method to good
advantage.
Amongmodern socialscientists,no one has
been more adept at seeingthe patterns of human
behavior through observationthan ErvingGoffman:
A game such as chess generates a habitable
universe for those who can follow it, a plane
ofbeing, a cast of characterswith a seemingly
unlimited number of different situations and
acts through which to realize their natures
and destinies.Yet much of this is reducible
to a smallset of interdependent rules and practices.
Ifthe meaningfulness of everydayactivity
is similarlydependent on a closed, ilnite
set of rules, then explicationof them would
give one a powerful means of analyzingso-
ciallife.
In a variety of research efforts, Goffmanuncovered
the rules of such diverse behaviors as living
in a mental institution (1961)and managingthe
"spoiledidentity" of being disfigured (1963).In
each case, GofEman observedthe phenomenon in
depth and teased out the rules governingbehavior.
Goffman's research provides an excellent example
of qualitativefield research as a source of grounded
theory.
Our earlier discussion of the ComfortHypothesis
and church involvement shows that qualitative
field researchis not the only method of observation
appropriate to the development of inductivetheory.
Here's another detailed exampleto illustrate
further the constructionof inductivetheory using
quantitative methods.
InductiveTheory Construction . 63
An ExampleofInductiveTheory:
WhyDoPeopleSmokeMarijuana?
During the 1960sand 1970s,marijuana use on
U.S. college campuseswas a subject of considerable
discussionin the popular press. Somepeople
were troubled by marijuana's popularity; others
welcomed it. What interests us here is why some
students smolced marijuana and others didn't. A
survey of studentsat the University of Hawaii
(Takeuchi1974)provided the data to answer that
question.
At the time of the study, countless explanations
were being offeredfor drug use. People who opposed
drug use, for example, often suggested that
marijuana smolcers were academicfailures trying
to avoid the rigors of college life. Those in favor
of marijuana, on the other hand, often spoke of
the searchfor new values: Marijuana smolcers,
they said, were people who had seen through the
hypocrisy of middle-classvalues.
David Takeuchi's (1974)analysis of the data
gathered from University of Hawaii students,howtver,
did not support any of the explanationsbeing
offered. Those who reported smolcingmarijuana
had essentially the same academicrecords as those
who didn't smolce it, and both groups were equally
involved in traditional"schoolspirit" activities.
Both groupsseemed to feel equally well integrated
into campuslife.
There were other differencesbetween the
groups,however:
1. Women were less likelythan men to smoke
marijuana.
2. Asian students (alarge proportion of the student
body)were less likely to smolcemarijuana
than were non-Asians.
3. Students living at home were less likely to
smokemarijuana than were those living in
apartments.
As in the case of religiosity, the three variables
independentlyaBected the likelihood of a student's
smokingmarijuana. About 10percent of the Asian
women living at home had smoked marijuana, in
contrast to about 80percent of the non-Asian men
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
64 .Chapter2: Paradigrns,Theory,and Social Research
living in apartments. And, as in the religiosity study,
the researchers discovereda powerfulpattern of
drug use before they had an explanation for that
pattern.
In this instance, the explanation toolt a peculiar
turn. Instead of explainingwhy some students
smoltedmarijuana, the researchers explainedwhy
some didn't. Assumingthat all students had some
motivation for trying drugs, the researcherssuggested
that students differed in the degree of "social
constraints" preventing them from following
through on that motivation.
U.S. societyis, on the whole, more permissive
with men than with women when it comesto deviant
behavior. Consider,for example, a group of
men getting drunkandboisterous.We tend to dismiss
suchbehavior with referencesto "camaraderie"
and "havinga good time,"whereas a group
of women behaving similarlywould probably be
regardedwith great disapproval.We have an idiom,
"Boys willbe boys,"but no comparable idiom for
girls. The researchersreasoned, therefore, that
women would have more to lose by smoldngmarijuana
than men would. In other words,being
female provided a constraint against smoldng
marijuana.
Studentsliving at home had obvious constraints
against smoldng marijuana, comparedwith students
living on their own. Quite aside Gom differences
in opportunity,those living at home were
seen as being more dependent on their parentshence
more vulnerable to additionalpunishment
for brealdng the law.
Finally, the Asian subculture in Hawaiihas traditionallyplaced
a higher premium on obedience to
the law than have other subcultures, so Asian students
would have more to lose if they were caught
violatingthe law by smoldngmarijuana.
Overall, then, a "social constraints"theory
was offered as the explanation for observed differences
in the likelihoodof smoldngmarijuana.
The more constraintsa student had, the less likely
he or she would be to smoke marijuana. It bears
repeatingthat the researchers had no thoughts
about such a theory when their research began.
The theory came from an examination of
the data.
'8he LinksBetweenTheory
and Research
Throughout this chapter,we have seen various aspects
of the links between theory and research in
social scientificinquiry.In the deductive model,
research is used to test theories. In the inductive
model,theories are developedfrom the analysis of
research data. This final sectionloolts more closely
into the ways theory and research are related in actual
social scientificinquiry.
Whereas we have discussedtwo idealizedlogical
models for linkingtheory and research, social
scientificinquirieshave developed a great many
variations on these themes. Sometimestheoretical
issues are introduced merely as a background for
empiricalanalyses. Other studies cite selected empirical
data to bolster theoretical arguments.In
neither case is there really an interaction between
theory and research for the purpose of developing
new explanations.Some studiesmalte no use of
theory at all, aiming specifically,for example, at an
ethnographicdescription of a particular social situation,
such as an anthropologicalaccount of food
and dress in a particular society.
As you read socialresearch reports, however,
you will very often find that the authors are conscious
of the implicationsof their research for social
theories and vice versa. Here are a few examplesto
illustrate this point.
When W. Lawrence Neuman (1998)set out to
examine the problem of monopolies (the "trust
problem") in U.S. history, he saw the relevance of
theories about how socialmovements transform
society ("statetransformation").He became convinced,
however, that existingtheories were inadequate
for the taslc before him:
Statetransformationtheory linlcs socialmovements
to statepolicy formationprocessesby
focussingon the role of culturalmeaning in
organizedpolitical struggles.Despite a resemblance
among concepts and concerns, constructionistideas
found in the socialproblems,
socialmovements, and symbolicpolitics literatures
have not been incorporatedinto the
theory.In this paper, I draw on these three
literaturesto enhance statetransformation
theory.
(Nezli?zalz1998:315)
Having thus mod5ed state transformationtheory,
Neuman had a theoretical tool that could guide
his inquiry and analysisinto the politicalmaneuvering~related
to monopoliesbeginningin the 1880s
and continuing until World War I. Thus, theory
served as a resourcefor research and at the same
time was modiiiedby it.
In a somewhat similar study, Alemseghed
ICebede and J. David I(nottnerus (1998)set out to
investigatethe rise of Rastafarianism in the Caribbean.
However, they felt that recent theories on social
movements had become too positivistic in focusing
on the mobilization of resources. Resource
mobilizationtheory, they felt, downplays
the motivation, perceptions, and behavior of
movement participants . ..and concentrates
instead on the whys and hows ofmobilization.
Typically theoretical and research problems
include:How do emerging movement organizations
seek to mobilize and routinize the
flow of resources and how does the existing
political apparatus affect the organizationof
resources?
(1998:500)
To study Rastafarianism more appropriately,
the researchersfelt the need to include several concepts
from contemporary socialpsychology. In particular,
they sought models to use in dealingwith
problems of meaning and collective thought.
Frederika E. Schmitt and PatriciaYancey Martin
(1999)were particularlyinterested in discovering
what made for successful rape crisis centers and
how they dealt with the organizationaland political
envirolllnentswithin which they operated. The researchers
foundtheoretical constructsappropriate
to their inquiry:
This case study of unobtrusive mobilizingby
Southern CaliforniaRape Crisis Center uses
archival, observational, and interview data to
explore how a feministorganizationworked
to change police, schools, prosecutor, and some
Main Points . 65
state and national organizationsfrom 1974to
1994.Mansbridge's concept of street theory
and Icatzenstein's concepts of unobtrusive
mobilizationand discursivepolitics guide the
analysis.
(1999:364)
In summary, there is no simple recipe for
conductingsocial science research. It is far more
open-ended than the traditionalview of science
suggests.Ultimately, science depends on two categories
of activity:logic and observation.As you'll
see throughout this book, they can be fit together
in many patterns.
MAIN POINTS
r Social scientists use a variety of paradigms to
organizehow they understand and inquire into
sociallife.
s A distinctionbetween types of theories that
1
i: cuts aaoss various paradigms is macrotheory
(theoriesabout large-scalefeatures of society)
versus microtheory (theoriesabout smaller
units or features of society).
e The positivisticparadigm assumes that we can
scien&cally discoverthe rules governingsocial
life.
s The Social Darwinistparadigm saw a progressive
evolution in sociallife.
c The conflict paradigm focuseson the attempt
of persons and groups to dominate others and
to avoidbeing dominated.
c The symbolicinteractionistparadigm examines
how shared meanings and socialpatterns are
developedin the course of social interactions.
e Ethnomethodologyfocuseson the ways people
make sense out of sociallife in the process of
living it, as though each were a researcher engaged
in an inquiry.
s The structuralfunctionalist(orsocial systems)
paradigm seeks to discoverwhat functionsthe
many elementsof societyperform for the
whole system.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
66 .Chapter 2: Paradigms,'Theory,and SocialResearch Additional Readings .67
a Feminist paradigms, in addition to drawing attention
to the oppression of women in most societies,
highlight how previous images of social
reality have often come from and reinforced
the experiences of men.
-a Some contemporary theorists and researchers
have challenged the long-standing belief in an
objective reality that abides by rational rules.
They point out that it is possible to agree on an
"intersubjective" reality.
s The elements of social theory include observations,
facts, and laws (whichrelate to the reality
being observed) and concepts, variables,
&oms or postulates, propositions, and hypotheses
(whichare logicalbuilding blocks
of the theory itself).
e In the traditional image of science, scientists
proceed from theory to operationalizationto
observation. But this image is not an accurate
picture of how scientific research is ac!xally
done.
e Socialscientific theory and research are linked
through the two logicalmethods of deduction
(the derivation of expectations and hypotheses
from theories) and induction (the development
of generalizations from specificobservations).
5 In practice, science is a process involving an alternation
of deduction and induction.
B Guillennina Jasso's theory of distributive justice
illustrates how formal reasoning can lead to a
variety of theoretical expectations that can be
tested by observation.
B David Takeuchi's study of factors iduencing
marijuana smoking among University of
Hawaii students illustrates how collecting observations
can lead to generalizations and an
explanatory theory.
a In practice, there are many possible links between
theory and research and many ways of
going about social inquiry.
KEY TERMS
The following terms are d e h e d in context in the
chapter and can also be found in the Glossary at
the back of the book.
paradigms operationalization
macrotheory operationaldefinition
microtheory null hypothesis
hypothesis
REVIEW QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Considerthe possible relationship between education
and prejudice mentioned in Chapter 1.Describehow
you might examinethat relationship
through (a)deductive and (b)inductivemethods.
2. Review the relationshipsbetween theory and reL
searchdiscussedin this chapter. Select a research
articlefroman academicjournal and classify the
relationship between theory and researchyou find
there.
3. Using one of the many search engines (such
as Excite, HotBot, Infoseek, Lycos, Netscape,
Webcrawler,or Yahoo),find information on the
Web concerningat least three of the following
paradigms. Give the Web locations and report:
on the theoristsdiscussed in connectionwith the
discussionsyou found.
ConflictTheory Functionalism
ExchangeTheory Interactionism
~thnomethodology Positivism
Feminism Postmodernism
ADDITIONAL READlNGS
Chafetz, Janet. 1978.A Prinzer orz tlze Cotzstructionand
Testing of Theories iiz Sociology.Itasca, IL: Peacock.
One of the few books on theory construction
written expresslyforundergraduates. Chafetz
provides a rudimentary understanding of the
philosophyof science through simplelanguage
and everyday examples.She describesthe nature
of explanation,the role of assumptionsand concepts,
and the building and testing of theories.
Denzin,Norman I<.,and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994.
Handbook of Qualitative Researclz. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage. Various authors discussthe process of
qualitative research from the perspective of various
paradigms, showinghow they iduence the
nature of inquiry.The editors also critiquepositivism
from a postmodern perspective.
DeVault, Marjorie L. 1999.Liberating Metlzod: Fe~nitzism
mza' SocialResearcl?, Philadelphia: Temple University
Press. This book elaborates on some of the
methods associatedwith the feministparadigm
and is committedto both rigorous inquiry and the
use of socialresearch to combat oppression.
Icuhn,Thomas. 1970. The Strhictureof Scienti$c Revolzitions.
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.hexcitingand
innovativerecasting of the nature of
scienti6c development.ICul1n disputes the notion
of gradual change and modification in science, arguing
instead that establishedparadigms tend to
persist until the weight of contradictoryevidence
brings their rejection and replacement by new
paradigms. This short book is at once stimulating
and informative.
Lofland, John, and Lyn H. Lofland. 1995.Atzalyzi~zg
Social Settings:A Gtiia'e to Qualitative Observatiotzand
Analysis. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth. An excellent
text on how to conduct qualitativeinquiry with
an eye toward discoveringthe rules of sociallife.
Includes a critiqueof postmodernism.
McGrane, Bernard. 1994. Tlze Un-Tlr aizd 10rnph Car:
Experiments iiz Personal Freedom and Everyday Life.
Fort Bragg, CA: The SmallPress. Some excellent
and imaginative examplesof an ethnomethodologicalapproach
to society and to the craft of
sociology.The book is useful for both students
and faculty.
Reinharz, Shularnit. 1992.Fe~nitzistMetlzods in Social
Researclz. New York: Oxford UniversityPress. This
book explores severalsocialresearch techniques
(suchas interviewing,experiments, and content
analysis)froma feminist perspective.
Ritzer, George. 1988.Sociological Tlzeory.New York:
ICnopf.This is an excellent overview of the major
theoreticaltraditionsin sociology.
Turner, Jonathan H., ed. 1989.TheoryBziilditzg in
Sociology:Assessi~zgTlzeoreti'calCumulatio?~.Newbury
Park, CA: Sage. This collectionof essays on sociologicaltheory
constructionfocusesspecifically on
the questionposed by Turner's introductory chapter,
"Can SociologyBe a CumulativeScience?"
Turner, Stephen Park, and Jonathan H. Turner. 1990.
TIzehnpossible Science:Atz Institzitio?zalAtzalysis of
Awzen'caiz Sociology.NewburyPark, CA. Sage. Two
authors bring two very different points of view to
the history of U.S. sociologists' attempt to establish
a science of society.
SOCIOLOGY WEB SITE
See the Wadsworth SociologyResource Center,
&asamVVirtual Society, for additionallinks, Internet exercises
by chapter, quizzesby chapter, and Miaocase-
reldtedmaterials:
INFOTRAC COLLEGE EDITION
SEARCH WORD SUMMARY
e Go to the Wadsworth SociologyResource Center,
Virtual Society, to £ind a list of search words
for each chapter. Using the search words, go to InfoTrac
College Edition, an online library of over 900
journals where you can do online research and find
readings relatedto your studies. To aid in your search
and to gain usefultips, see the Student Guide to MoTrac
College Edition on the Virtual SocietyWeb site:
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely