Sociological Practice

Linking Theory and Social Research

Derek Layder

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 1998
• Print ISBN: 9780761954309, 9780761954293
• eBook ISBN: 9781446236826
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

In this textbook, Derek Layder offers a better understanding of the links between theory and research, and provides an analysis of the relationship between the two. He develops clear usable strategies to encourage theory development in the practical context of social research, and introduces a new approach - adaptive theory - which can be used to generate new theory as well as develop existing theory in conjunction with empirical research. Layder concludes by providing an outline of new rules of sociological method that show how adaptive theory can be put into practice.

CHAPTER 1

THE LINKS BETWEEN THEORY AND RESEARCH

This book is aimed at social researchers who wish to incorporate more theory in their research (either by using it as a guide or by attempting to generate it from data) and at social theorists who wish to give their ideas extra weight by grounding them more firmly in empirical evidence and data. To this end, I examine the most common links between social theory and social research with a view to outlining a new approach (‘adaptive theory’) which attempts to serve the needs of both theorists and empirical researchers. Adaptive theory endeavours to combine the use of pre-existing theory and theory generated from data analysis in the formulation and actual conduct of empirical research. I believe that this kind of approach challenges the gap that has grown up around those who specialize in social theory on the one hand, and those who are specialists in data collection and empirical research on the other.

With regard to these general aims there are two sorts of audience that I attempt to address in this book. First, within the discipline of sociology the above-mentioned gap between theory and research is particularly marked and I believe that it is an obstacle both to the development of sociology as a discipline and to the possibility of the development of a cumulative body of ‘theoretically informed’ knowledge. Thus my widest objective is to attempt to provide some ways in which the gap may be overcome and the connections between theory and research made stronger. I shall say more about these matters later in this chapter so I shall not expand upon them at this juncture.

However, it is important to say that, apart from clearing a path through the rather confusing maze of theory-research links, this book attempts to develop an original approach to theorizing in social research. As I have indicated, what I call adaptive theory challenges some entrenched sociological orthodoxies about research methodology as well as about the uses and nature of social theory. In this sense it offers what can only be called a new set of rules of sociological method without insisting that previous practices are somehow outmoded or worthless. Thus, adaptive theory attempts to capitalize on some of the strengths of existing approaches by expanding their range at the same time as providing a new approach and a group of alternative strategies which move beyond the established range of orthodox approaches.

However, my remarks are also addresssed to an even wider audience of social researchers who come from a variety of different disciplines and who are perhaps not aware of, or au fait with, the sort of general social theory that I have in mind here, and thus are not conscious of the gap between theory and research that I identify. Nonetheless I believe that this audience will be more aware of other kinds of problems which surround the relationship between theory and social research. In particular, I think that many social researchers often experience a lack of guidance as to how to deal with theory, how to use it and how to develop it from the data they unearth during their research. This is because methodology texts and others which describe how to conduct social research typically either do not address the issue of theory and theorizing directly or they take it for granted. Also, even where there is some minimal guidance provided, very often textbooks utilize a very limited range and number of exemplars and perspectives with regard to the question of using or generating theory in social research. In this respect this book aims to expand the range of possibilities for those engaged in social research who either have little training in theoretical matters or who crave for alternative approaches.

The sequence of my discussion will be as follows. Following these introductory comments, I elaborate on some of the background or contextual issues that serve as organizing themes of the book. These include some of the issues that constitute the widest parameters of the climate of opinion in which the central themes of the book are situated. Thus I attempt to contextualize the discussion in terms of contemporary ideas about the significance of theory and theorizing as well as attitudes to the whole project of social analysis in general. I develop themes around several topics, including the debate about the relevance and significance of classical social theory and its role in securing adequate, valid and cumulative knowledge about social reality. In turn, these questions are bound up with debates about the nature of social science, its claims to objectivity and truth, and the role of explanation. I also take issue with the postmodern attempt to denigrate theory and with the paucity of attempts to redress the continually growing gap between general theory and social research that I have already highlighted.

My arguments in all these areas will become apparent as the discussion unfolds but I should like to point out that as with the question of recent attempts by postmodernists to disavow or denigrate the role of theory in social analysis in general, I am opposed to any approach which simply cuts itself off from a sense of tradition and continuity in social analysis. This is because I believe that such a posture ultimately leads to a stagnation of knowledge rather than its cumulative growth and development. Connected with this claim, I also argue strongly that it is unwise and premature to abandon wholesale, claims to objectivity and the search for ‘truth’ in social science and analysis – even though what we regard as the truth may be significantly reconfigured in the process of reclaiming it. Implied in this is the idea that social analysis (or ‘science’ understood in an amended sense) must be defended as a species of explanation, especially in the face of recent attempts to decompose and dissolve it into mere reportage and/or descriptions of ‘local narratives’ – the voices of those people studied.

After tracing through some of these arguments – and here I must point out that the discussion will be brief and strictly tailored to my central concern with theory-research links – I then move to a consideration of some of the existing approaches to understanding these links as they are available in the methodological and theoretical literature of social research. I do this by presenting a number of dimensions of theorizing in social research, in terms of which I suggest we can understand the variety of styles of theorizing that are employed in actual social research projects. This background is necessary in order to understand the way in which, in later chapters, I attempt to develop new ideas and approaches to the theory-research connection. Thus the discussion of existing dimensions and varieties of theorizing in research informs the later chapters by providing a benchmark from which to judge both continuities and deviations from existing approaches.

Chapter 2 forms a bridge into the later chapters which are concerned with mapping out the contours of my own alternative views on the sort of theory-research linkages that I would endorse and would like to see playing an active role in the conduct of research. In this respect Chapter 2 concentrates on the elements or ‘stages’ of the research process as they are normally conceived in the methods literature. Instead of viewing these as a relatively fixed sequence of stages, I suggest that from the point of view of stimulating the generation of theory and the theoretical imagination it is often more profitable to see the different elements as loosely and flexibly positioned in relation to each other. Furthermore, in contrast to many conventional texts, I suggest that theorizing should be understood as a continuous process which accompanies the research at all ‘stages’ rather than as a discrete aspect that is only of relevance at the beginning or end of data-gathering. In this respect I recommend overall that theorizing should be accorded a much more important place in the research process than is normally the case.

Chapter 3 concentrates on the actual dynamics of theory-construction from the point of view of adaptive theory – although I reserve a systematic discussion of the formal and practical characteristics of adaptive theory as a distinct and coherent alternative to conventional positions until Chapter 6. Chapter 3 examines the process of theory-generation from the point of view of the analysis of research data. In this sense it advocates a form of emergent or ‘grounded’ theory, since I believe that this kind of approach facilitates theoretical discovery and thus helps to offset the problem of theoretical stagnation which results from the routine application of established theory or theoretical perspectives. However, it is extremely important to understand that this form of emergent theory is an integral part of the wider adaptive approach, and thus it parts company with conventional notions of grounded theory.

I argue that gounded theory is inherently limited by its dogmatic exclusion of other kinds of theory and alternative strategies designed to generate theory from data. Chapter 3, however, is not simply a formal discussion of methodological issues. By far the bulk of the chapter is concerned with outlining practical techniques which will help the researcher to transform data analysis into a form in which the theoretical imagination is stimulated. Thus I discuss and give examples relating to the coding of data and writing theoretical memos. Finally, I discuss the question of the development of theory in the context of multiple strategies of research, including the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, historical analysis, sampling, interviewing, coding, memos and the construction of typologies.

Chapter 4 focuses on the concept-indicator problem in social research. This connects the practical issues of theory-generation as they are spelled out in Chapters 3 and 5 to rather more formal questions about the status and validity of concepts. However, this is not simply a ‘formal’ exercise since the concept-indicator problem points us to the concrete link between theoretical concepts and the things to which they refer empirically. To this end, I identify and describe different types of concept (‘behavioural’, ‘systemic’, ‘mediating’ and ‘theoretical’) as they relate both to data and to wider aspects of society. Very often the concept-indicator problem is glossed over in methods texts, but here I centralize its importance not only for issues connected with the nitty-gritty of research practice, but for fundamental ones about the nature of social reality and the influence of general theoretical problems in empirical research.

Chapter 5 reverses the emphasis outlined in Chapter 3 and focuses on theory-building by applying existing theoretical materials to the research process as a means of stimulating novel theory. One of the features that distinguishes the approach I advocate from grounded theory is that I believe that it is not possible to approach research in a theory-neutral manner, and thus it is better to acknowledge, harness and attempt to control the inputs of prior theory and concepts as they intrude or otherwise make themselves felt in the research process. Thus, Chapter 4 tackles this question head on by suggesting strategies which facilitate the utilization and application of prior theory in the context of ongoing research. In this respect I argue that the use of ‘background’ and ‘orienting’ concepts may help both in the ongoing formulation of research problems and in the manner in which the data are explained and analysed in the long run. I also give examples of how theory may be elaborated during the course of research by drawing on both extant theory and theory and concepts as they emerge through data collection and analysis.

Chapter 6 brings the threads of the previous discussions together by laying out what I mean by adaptive theory as a distinct and unified approach. In this respect I specify what I mean by adaptive theory in terms of a number of points and then elaborate on them. In a nutshell, adaptive theory, as I conceive it, is an original amalgam of different influences and approaches that falls somewhere between what are variously referred to as deductive or theory-testing approaches on one side and inductive or theory-generating approaches on the other (although the proponents of each of these approaches would claim, wrongly in my opinion, that they contain in equal measure both deductive and inductive elements).

That it occupies something of an intermediate zone in relation to these approaches is not the only distinguishing aspect of adaptive theory. As may or may not be apparent, I feel very strongly that the gap between general social theory and ‘empirical’ theories (associated with the analysis and explanation of empirical data, information and findings) should be closed down in order to harness the potentially productive interplay between them. Thus, my vision of adaptive theory attempts to incorporate the insights of general theory into the practical and strategic thinking of researchers who are collecting and analysing empirical data with a view to coming up with new theories, concepts and insights.

The word ‘adaptive’ is meant to convey that the theory both adapts to, or is shaped by, incoming evidence while the data itself is simultaneously filtered through, and is thus adapted by, the prior theoretical materials (frameworks, concepts, ideas) that are relevant to their analysis. Again I provide practical examples and rules of thumb concerning the way in which this approach can be applied by researchers who need guidance or alternative sources of stimulation in their search for theory and the analysis, explanation and organization of their findings. Chapter 7 functions as a concluding chapter which both summarizes the main arguments of the book as a whole and also views adaptive theory in the wider context of approaches to the theory-research relation. My overall view is that adaptive theory can exist alongside those theories currently available but may also function as a radical alternative to them. However, even in this latter sense, I do not envisage that adaptive theory should be understood as entirely ‘replacing’ existing orthodoxies. Rather, it must be seen as a branching out in a new direction but as one among a healthy diversity and plurality of approaches. To this end I describe some of the general characteristics of adaptive theory as well as some new rules of method which are implied by this approach.

The current climate of ideas

As I intimated in my opening comments, this book may be regarded as a direct intervention into a debate about the most adequate approach(es) to social analysis in general and the uses and functions of social theory and social research in particular. One of the book’s central themes – and one which underlies the more particular and practical recommendations that I make about the use of theory in the research process – is my belief that there are and should be continuities between classical and contemporary social theory. This flies in the face of much current writing, fashion and ‘orthodoxy’ which insists that there must be a radical break with the modernist project of theory and theorizing. This is commonly associated with other views, such that there are no longer any grounds for defending objectivism (or objectivity) and the search for truth in any guise, and the idea that social analysis is about describing (rather than attempting to explain) aspects of social life. Taken together, these views add up to a profound pessimism about the possibility of cumulative knowledge, which I would like to counter in the most direct and robust manner possible. Let me deal with these as a series of points.

First, I believe that contemporary social analysis must trade on, refashion and re-establish a continuity with classical sociology in order that we retain some hold on important and essential components of social analysis. Writers such as Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Simmel concerned themselves not only with empirical inquiry but with developing theoretical and conceptual frameworks with which they could understand society as a whole and the larger processes of social development that provide their historical context. A significant number of contemporary social analysts and commentators in relatively recent times have questioned this kind of approach. They suggest that a concern with ‘meta-narratives’ (or grand theories) is inappropriate and that a concern with local and subjective narratives is more apposite. This position, which is shared by poststructuralists and postrnodemists (although there are others who concur over this), has the effect of dispensing with theory as an important and relatively independent component of social analysis.

As will be apparent already, I firmly believe that the project of social theory is absolutely essential to social analysis in general and social research in particular. In this sense I believe we must attempt to reproduce some of the concerns of the classical sociologists. I am not suggesting that the development of large-scale theories of society and social change is a necessary precondition of social research, nor am I suggesting that the smaller-scale concerns of much social research today are somehow less important. However, I do feel that the tie between general theory and theorizing about society and the actual formulation and conduct of social research should be reaffirmed in the present context in which a specialist and disciplinary gap has emerged between them.

This is particularly important since – as will become apparent at various junctures in this book – I believe that contemporary debates over the relation between agency and structure (or system) in social theory, as well as associated debates about the nature of social reality (ontology) and forms of representation or explanation, have profound implications for the conduct of research and the analysis of the empirical data it draws upon. Thus it is important to take seriously the manner in which general theoretical concerns directly enter into the practical calculations of research. This is a point which is as often under-appreciated by those who call themselves theorists as much as it is ignored or denied by more empirically engaged social reseachers. Both general theory and empirical research would benefit from mutual co-operation and dialogue. On the one hand, theory would be made more robust and its explanatory capacity generally enhanced by having its assumptions, axioms and presuppositions more closely and routinely measured against empirical evidence. On the other hand, empirical research would benefit from more sophisticated forms of analysis and explanation as well as enhanced generalizability and applicability.

Currently there are several forces working against this kind of rapprochement. It is not simply ignorance, prejudice or rivalry between theorists and researchers that stand in the way of closer links. Perhaps more important than these intellectual or practical antipathies is the fact that the disciplinary specialization which drives and underpins academic and research careers is such that the gap is routinely reinforced rather than broken down. Careers tend to be rewarded for contributions to specialized areas of competence, such as resolving particular problems in social theory, or adding to knowledge of a particular substantive area in social research, for instance medicine or education, or attempting to overcome a social problem, say drug use or prostitution. The reluctance of specialist publication outlets such as academic journals as well as book publishers to allow academics and researchers to straddle different market niches simply exacerbates this tendency to stick within disciplinary boundaries for fear of being penalized or ignored in career terms. Thus, different publication ‘market areas’, such as ‘social theory’, ‘research methods’, ‘mental illness’, ‘organization studies’, ‘cultural studies...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Preface
• 1 The Links Between Theory and Research
• 2 Elements of the Research Process
• 3 Analysing Data with Theory in Mind
• 4 Social Research and Concept-indicator Links
• 5 From Theory to Data: Starting to Theorize
• 6 Towards Adaptive Theory
• 7 Some New Rules of Method
• Bibliography
• Index