Advances in Group Processes

Edward J. Lawler, Shane R. Thye

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781800432338
• eBook ISBN: 9781800432345
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Business History
• Index: Economics

Advances in Group Processes publishes theoretical analyses, reviews, and theory based empirical chapters on group phenomena. The series adopts a broad conception of 'group processes.' This includes work on groups ranging from the very small to the very large, and on classic and contemporary topics such as status, power, trust, justice, social influence, identity, decision-making, intergroup relations and social networks. Previous contributors have included scholars from diverse fields including sociology, psychology, political science, economics, business, philosophy, computer science, mathematics and organizational behavior.  

Volume 37 brings together papers related to a variety of topics in small groups and organizational research. The volume includes papers that address theoretical and empirical issues related to consumer social privilege, group processes and disrupted environments, the use of time as a construct and the affective bases of self. Other contributions examine solving problems of cooperation, the effects of identity non-verification, and a series of papers addressing Stryker's identity theory. Overall, the volume includes papers that reflect a wide range of theoretical approaches from leading scholars who work in the general area of group processes.

Identity Theory: Analysis and Reconstruction^*

Barry Markovsky and Jake Frederick

Abstract

Purpose – Stryker's identity theory has impacted sociological social psychology for a half century and still inspires an active research agenda. To date, however, its terms and arguments have not been analyzed closely. Our purpose with this project was to conduct such an analysis.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We provide a detailed rationale for our analytic method that entails an objective examination of a theory's clarity, parsimony, precision, and other essential scientific qualities. It is applied using procedures that, among other functions, check terms for clarity and consistency of usage, and ensure that key arguments are logically valid.

Findings – The analysis revealed significant gaps and ambiguities in the core theory. We offered a series of recommendations designed to supply missing logical elements, clarify definitions, and streamline the terminological system. We sought to remain true to the original theory's purposes while further strengthening its coherence, transparency, and overall utility.

Practical Implications – Kurt Lewin's famous maxim applies well here: “Nothing is so practical as a good theory.” To the extent that a body of research is claimed to be theory-driven, gaps and ambiguities throw into question the results of empirical tests and applications that ostensibly are backed by the theory. Without theoretical support, findings are neither meaningful nor generalizable.

Social Implications – A logically sound and semantically transparent identity theory will have the greatest chance for making real differences in society via practical applications.

Originality/Value of the Chapter – We offer a straightforward method to ensure meaningfulness and integrity in social science theories. Such analyses are rare, but we hope that their utility for theory-driven research programs such as identity theory's is evident.

Keywords: Social psychology; theory construction; theory analysis; identity theory; definitions; propositions

2018 marked a half century since the late Sheldon Stryker introduced Identity Theory. Inspired by the symbolic interactionist perspective, Stryker expressed his theory in the form of a set of propositions. Although there have been some alterations over time, it has aged well insofar as capturing the attention of many sociologists and propelling a considerable volume of research. ¹ This Chapter puts the theory itself under a microscope. Specifically, we went in search of the core of the theory with the goal of analyzing it logically and semantically. The analysis was designed to ensure that, first, the meanings of key theoretical terms are unambiguous, and second, that any implications claimed to follow from the theory are in fact logically derivable. Where we found ambiguities or gaps, we have offered constructive remedies. The result is a parsimonious reformulation with, among other benefits, improved clarity, internal consistency, testability, and potential for broader application through logical integrations with other theories.

Why Analyze Theories?

There are two fundamental reasons to perform theory analyses. The first is to check the logical integrity of the theory's arguments. All theories contain one or more abstract and general arguments that implicitly ask readers to accept conclusions that are alleged to follow logically from a set of premises. If conclusions are not actually supported by premises, then the argument is invalid and fails to provide a reason to accept the explanation for the conclusions. Thus, for example, a conclusion arrived at via a logical leap may be true, but not because anything in the theory has accounted for it. Furthermore, ambivalence is also the enemy of good theorizing. Consider this proposition: “We would anticipate that under certain circumstances, increases in x will cause increases in y.” Although seemingly innocent, there are serious problems here. Unless the “circumstances” are specified a priori in a rigorous way, the claim's proponent is unlikely to consider it falsified when confronted with instances where increases in x were not associated with increases in y. Despite appearances to the contrary, no scientific value accrues from testing claims whose ambivalence buffers them from falsification.

The second reason to perform theory analyses is to check for the semantic coherence of the terms used to express premises and conclusions – the verbal or mathematical symbols chosen by the theorist to convey meanings to readers. If the meanings of some of the terms are left implicit, then they are unlikely to mean the same thing to theorists and readers. Because empirical tests rely on operationalizations of theoretical terms, and because operationalizations require consistent theoretical meanings, ambiguous terms undermine efforts to properly test hypotheses relying on those terms. A theory may have a perfectly explicit proposition such as “The greater the engagement, the higher the performance.” But unless researchers can agree on (i.e., are told precisely by the theorist) what “engagement” and “performance” mean in this theoretical context, then disagreements are inevitable over what counts as engagement and performance in empirical contexts.

Problems of logical integrity and semantic coherence are of paramount importance, especially whenever considering less-than-formalized theories. In such cases, problems may remain obscured by verbose or complex theoretical discourse, or by glossing over theoretical considerations and attending instead to a fascinating but ultimately inconsequential empirical analysis. ² Most social scientists know this implicitly, but we contend that very little is ever done about it and the long-term consequences are detrimental to our field's position in the broader fabric of science.

Why Analyze This Theory?

Analyzing Stryker's identity theory is important for reasons both substantive and epistemological. First, substantively, it is a well-known and ambitious sociological theory that aspires to build conceptual bridges between individuals and society. It also has ties to many other topics and theoretical projects including social identity theory (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000), sociology of emotions (Lawler, 2003; Stets, 2003), social stratification (Hunt, 2003), sociology of the family (Pasley, Futris, & Skinner, 2002), identity control theory (Stryker & Burke, 2000), and others. These strands of research connect to Stryker's work with varying degrees of specificity, with some even characterized as being adjuncts of the same theory (e.g., Stets & Burke, 2014). Ultimately, the logical structures and relationships among these strands should be transparent rather than matters of opinion. Our focus on a clear and basic statement of identity theory is a starting point for clarifying these relationships. Given the theory's emphasis on both micro and macro levels, along with its implications for a variety of related topics, it is an ideal candidate for analysis and explication. Bridging across micro and macro levels of analysis is a tall order, however, and it can be tempting for theorists to gloss over key elements of the bridge. Any theory is vulnerable to semantic and logical shortcomings, but multilevel theories especially so (Markovsky & Turner, in press). A close inspection of identity theory will indicate those areas in greatest need of repair, while illustrating analytic techniques applicable at any level of analysis.

The second reason for our focus on identity theory is for its inherent epistemological lessons. Stryker's theory already appears to be relatively explicit and rigorous. He built the theory with an emphasis on clarity and testability, and subsequent publications deliberately enumerate the theory's statements in a spirit of transparency (Stryker, 1968, 1980, 1981 and; Stryker & Serpe, 1982). Nevertheless, a careful examination of the theory reveals several issues that, unless resolved, will likely hinder its contribution to knowledge. A theoretical analysis will maximize desirable theoretical properties by identifying, evaluating, and refining key elements (Barnum, 1997; Markovsky, 1993, 1994; Markovsky and Webster, in press). Conducting such analyses requires the application of some basic theory construction methods while attending to the ideal properties manifested in all good scientific theories. Stryker’s (1968, 1980) work is widely cited as the source of structural symbolic interactionism, of which identity theory is a prominent component. The theory has always been presumed to be testable, as opposed to merely a general framework for drawing inspiration or alternative interpretations (e.g., Callero, 1985; Hoelter, 1983; Nuttbrock & Freudiger, 1991; Owens & Serpe, 2003; Serpe, 1987; Stryker & Serpe, 1982, 1994; and; Stryker, Serpe, & Hunt, 2005). This makes theoretical analysis especially apropos.

We were guided by a definition of theory that is both consistent with its broader usage in science and highly amenable to expressing sociological knowledge. Our approach is charitable and constructive: We seek a formulation that preserves the original theory's intent, but further offer modifications that render it more transparent and efficient. Science is at its heart a collective endeavor, and a side benefit of this approach is to make it more inviting for other scholars to refine, extend, integrate, test, or apply the theory, which in turn will further accelerate its development.

In short, identity theory can be improved by distilling its core elements into a form that meets higher logical and semantic standards. There are many benefits to attending closely to the formal properties of a theory, but the bottom line is that such work pays off in better communication and more effective collaboration, which in turn facilitate its continued development, testing, and application.

Properties and Components of Theories

As we embark on an extended discussion of theory analysis methods, we wish to make one point clear above all others and encourage readers to bear it in mind as they forge on: The best theories are those that persuade us to believe them not because they ring true or are expressed authoritatively, but because they are verifiably supported by sound logic and solid evidence. By the same token, any vagueness in the meanings of a theory's terms, and any lapses or leaps in a theory's arguments, threaten the validity and relevance of its purported evidence and should evoke skepticism rather than belief in regard to its claims.

Theory versus Quasi-theory

It is vital – though seldom easy in sociology – to separate discourse about a theory from that which supposedly is the theory. We strongly advocate for a definition that leaves no doubt as to which is which:

Theory: A set of abstract, general, logically connected, testable, and empirically validated statements that explains phenomena within its scope of application.

We define quasi-theory as a point of contrast: Any discourse that ostensibly pertains to one or more theories but is not bound to rigorous standards in its language and logic (Markovsky, 1994, 199...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Editor
• Editorial Advisory Board
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• Hypocognition and the Invisibility of Social Privilege
• Group Dynamics in Disrupted Environments
• Where Did the Time Go? Insights on the Meanings and Uses of Time in Sociological Social Psychology
• Grief, Care, and Play: Theorizing the Affective Roots of the Social Self
• Reputation, Forgiveness, and Solving Problems of Cooperation
• Negotiating a Nonverified Identity: Emotional, Cognitive, and Behavioral Responses
• Identity Theory: Analysis and Reconstruction
• Getting Identity Theory (IT) Right
• Where Is “IT” (Identity Theory)?
• Index