ADVERTISEMENTS:
This article throws light upon the four main functions of research for theory. The functions are: 1. Research Initiates Theory 2. Research Helps Recasting of Theory 3. Research Refocuses Theory 4. Research Helps in Clarifying Theory.
Function # 1. Research Initiates Theory:
Scientific research sometimes leads to findings that may press for a new formulation as a theory; a new entrant to the existing theoretical corpus of the discipline. It is important to remember, however, that creating a new theory, to use Einstein’s metaphor, is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a sky scraper in its place.
“It is rather like climbing mountains, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting point and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our way up.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In the regular course of doing research, especially in the domain of behavioural sciences, there occur accidents in data collection. These accidents involve observations not initially planned in the design of the study.
Such unanticipated consequences of research spark off new hypotheses whose confirmation may result in a new theory. Merton terms it the serendipity component of research after the manner of Horace Walpole who coined the term in 1754.
The serendipity component refers to the accidental stumbling upon some unanticipated, anomalous and strategic fact. The history of science is replete with instances of how a striking fact accidentally stumbled upon, led to important new theories of great import.
Accidental finding that penicillin checks bacterial growth or that many errors in reading and speaking (slips of tongue) are not accidental but have deep and systemic causes, maybe cited as just two among the many examples.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Merton has cited an interesting instance of ‘serendipity’ in sociological research. Craftown was a suburban housing community of about 700 families of largely working- class status. It was observed in the course of a study that a large proportion of residents were affiliated to and participated frequently in civic, political and other voluntary organizations than had been the case in their previous locale of residence.
The surprising fact was that community participation among parents of infants and young children had also increased. The parents when asked how they managed this in spite of having to look after their young children, generally stated that this was possible because there were so many teenage baby-sitters available in the Craftown community.
Enquiries, however, revealed that the ratio of teenagers capable of baby-sitting to young children and the infants was far too less in Craftown as compared to that in the communities from where these parents had moved into Craftown.
These researchers were surprised and asked: Were the parents deliberately lying and if so, why? Could there be any vested interests behind their telling such a lie? Various other theories provided possible answers to the above phenomenon but the real clue was inadvertently provided by further interviews with the Craftown residents.
The real thing was that although numerically speaking, there were less adolescents in Craftown than in the previous localities, there were more of them whom the parents knew intimately and who therefore existed ‘socially’ for these parents seeking aid in child supervision.
Thus, it was not the absolute number of adolescents that was important, it was rather the number that had a social existence for these parents that really mattered. Put in a more abstract form, this meant that perception (of parents) was a function of (in the adolescents) and this confidence in turn was related to social cohesion (in Craftown).
This proposition can be related to the larger body of theory dealing with social perception. Similarly, the concept of relative deprivation was introduced in an attempt to make sense of surprising and strategic observations made in American Soldier Studies conducted by Stouffer and associates.
In sum, empirical findings emanating from research may suggest new hypotheses and relationships, as well as point to hitherto unknown uniformities, thus leading to formation of new theories and sometimes the elaboration of existing ones.
The attempts to formulate or establish systematic theoretical connections between empirical generalizations in regard to a theoretical social science, for example, in the history of social thought, have been made in various ways. In some cases, they have arisen from direct confrontation with puzzling social phenomena which provoke search for some kind of explanation.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The phenomenon may be one which has not hitherto attracted much attention (until its significance was unearthed by the imaginative power of a creative thinker) or it maybe something genuinely new and distinctive in social life. Marx’s attempt to explain French revolution and rise of socialist movements belong to this later category.
In other cases, it is the dissatisfaction with generalizations or explanatory schemes of earlier thinkers which may have given rise to new theories; for example, Weber took to revision of Marxist theory of the origin of capitalism or Durkheim proposed a new sociological explanation of suicide in contradiction to the diverse explanations which were in currency towards end of the 19th century.
Function # 2. Research Helps Recasting of Theory:
It is also through the repeated observations of hitherto neglected facts that empirical research helps improve the theoretical model.
When an existing theory commonly applied to a subject-matter does not adequately take into account the deviant cases or the non-conforming results, i.e., the ones that are not in accord with predictions suggested by the hypotheses derived from theory, research presses for its reformulation.
It is from the evidence contained in the deviant cases that the insights germinate. On the basis of these the existing theory is improved by reformulating it to generate predictions that will encompass all the data, including those initially considered deviant.
The history of social sciences offers many examples where the theoretical model was reformulated to encompass a series of fresh empirical observations. Malinowski in the course of his observation of the Trobrianders found that when these islanders fished by the reliable method of poisoning, an abundant catch was assured and also there was no danger or uncertainty, they did not practice magic.
But, on the other hand, in the open sea-fishing which did not promise any certain yield and typically entailed grave danger, the ritual of magic was practiced invariably. Stemming from these observation his theory was that magical belief arises to bridge the uncertainties, to fortify confidence, to reduce anxieties and to open up avenues of escape from the seeming impasse.
These observations suggested to Malinowski, the incorporation of new dimension into earlier theories of magic, i.e., the relation of magic to the dangerous and the uncontrollable. These new facts were not totally inconsistent with previous theories; it was only that the earlier theories had not taken them adequately into account. In effect, the new facts helped Malinowski develop an enlarged and improved theory.
Another very famous example may be cited. In the ‘Hawthorne electrical studies,’ the investigators started with the theory that physical conditions affect work output.
‘The investigators were interested in understanding the effects of specific changes in order to identify the optimal conditions. At first, the observers found that improvement in physical conditions did increase the output. But to their surprise, they subsequently found that changes in the direction of poorer physical conditions were also accompanied by increased output. This led to a re-examination of the initial theory.
The result was the unearthing of certain important variables that the existing theory had ignored. The fact was that the workers in the experimental group were being made to take in an experiment and were interested in its outcome. As a result, their relationship with their supervisor changed. Their being set as a small group led to a certain cohesiveness among them.
These social and attitudinal factors were so important that they obscured the effects of changes in physical conditions. It was not that the physical conditions did not affect the output, but this effect was over-shadowed by the effects of the social and attitudinal factors.
The result-of this research was a significant broadening of the theory to the effect that output is influenced by factors within the work situation, social as well as physical.
In sum, the results of scientific research very often force a change in the theoretic view of problems which may extend beyond the restricted domain of science itself. Theoretic generalizations must be founded on research results.
Once formed and widely accepted, however, they very often influence the development of scientific thought by indicating one of the possible lines of procedure. Einstein and Infield remark, “Successful revolt against the accepted views results in unexpected and completely different developments becoming a source of new philosophical aspects.”
Function # 3. Research Refocuses Theory:
Empirical research may also refocus theory by shifting the interest of researchers to new areas. Empirical research affects the more general trends in the development of theory. This occurs chiefly through the invention of research procedures which tend to shift the foci of theoretic interest toward those new areas of knowledge that were not hitherto amenable to scientific scrutiny.
A scientific theory summarizes what man can apprehend through his senses or infer from these sensory cues. Research technology is the means by which man as a scientist extends the domain over which sensory cues are perceptible.
Refinement in microscopy, for example, improved the resolution of objects with the advance from optical to electron microscopes and thereby extended the perceived sensory cues for the researcher approximately a thousand times.
In behavioural sciences, projective tests permit probing of the psychic life of persons in ways not previously attained by depth-interviews and other kindred techniques. Similarly, the development of scaling techniques for attitude measurement now permits the observer to comprehend objectively the patterns of association in expressed attitudes.
All forms of correlational and associational analysis provide means for the observer to manipulate observations which in many instances was not possible in experimental situations directly Research technology is not bound by any fixed limits of possible/refinement.
When we reach the point of finest discrimination of human perception, we develop mechanical, electronic apparatuses that are capable of translating their refined cues into those gross enough to fall within the range of human perception.
Constructive imagination increases man’s comprehension of his observable world. If the process of thinking involves combining bits of information, then combinations and permutations of such bits provide an unlimited number of possible models that can be the products of man’s mind.
Each new advance in research technology provides accretions of information-bits. Each model of man’s world likewise adds to the sum-total of information. Consequently, the opportunity to construct new theories or models of the world as man sees it is virtually inexhaustible.
The empirical world would, thus, seem to exchange the predictive power, precision, validity and verifiability of theories. Through the discovery and successive refinements of tools and techniques of methodology more and more theories are enabled to develop higher order propositions possessing greater predictive power.
Function # 4. Research Helps in Clarifying Theory:
Empirical research develops and refines concepts current in the discipline. Concepts are the essential building blocks of a theory. Operationalization, construction of indices and formalization of research findings enhance the clarity of theoretic concepts and variables.
Clarification of concepts embodied by theory, commonly considered a province peculiar to the theorist, is a frequent result of empirical research. Research sensitive to its own needs cannot easily escape this pressure for conceptual clarification.
This is so because a basic- requirement of research is that the concepts, the variables or what are often called the units of theory should be defined with sufficient clarity to enable the research to proceed. Research cannot proceed on the basis of concepts phrased in too vague or general terms. For research purposes some concrete empirical indicators of the concepts must be found.
Clarification of concepts ordinarily enters into empirical research by way of establishing indices of the variables under consideration. In non-research speculations and discourses, it is possible to talk loosely about such concepts as ‘intelligence’ ‘morale’ or ‘social cohesion’ without any clear conception of what is entailed by these terms; but these must be clarified if the researcher is to go about his task of systematically observing instances of high or low morale, or high or low intelligence or greater or lesser degree of factionalism or modernization etc.
Without devising indices which are observable, fairly precise and meticulously clear, the researcher is bound to be blocked in his venture at the very outset. The movement of thought which was named ‘operationalize’ is only an instance of the researcher demanding that concepts to be defined clearly enough for the research to proceed with its ordained task.
Emile Durkheim, despite the fact that his terminology and indices now appear to be crude and debatable, did perceive the need for devising indices for his concepts. What often appears in research, as a tendency towards quantification can thus be understood as a special case of inquirers attempting to clarify concepts sufficiently to permit the conduct of empirical inquiry.
The development of valid and observable indices is a prerequisite to the use of concepts in any research exercise.
A conception basic to sociology is the ‘conflicting social roles.’ The conception remains vague and of little value for research until such time as questions such as the following are answered, viz., on what grounds does one predict the behaviour of persons subject to conflicting roles?, or ‘when there is conflict, which role takes precedence, or under which conditions does one or another role prove powerful?’
More recently, empirical research has pressed for clarification of the key concepts involved in this problem.
Indices of conflicting group pressures have been devised and the resultant behaviour in specified situations observed. Thus, a beginning has been made in this direction and effects of cross-pressures on behaviour have been studied. Lazarsfeld, Berelson and McPhee’s study entitled ‘Voting’ (1954) reflects this advance.
It is the experience of researchers that actual testing of any existing theory is likely to redefine it. Often enough, the concepts that have been accepted as simple and obvious turn out to be vague and elusive when we attempt to fit them into facts.
Such redefinitions or clarifications may in turn lead to the discovery of new hypotheses. So long as theories use general terms and make rough predictions, it is difficult to disprove them. When we look at certain facts we realize that we would have to sharpen our theories considerably to disprove or prove them.
In sum, the goal of science is to model the sensory world of man for the purposes he defines. These may outcome his need for pragmatic knowledge or simply for comprehension of reality or to grapple with an intellectual challenge.
This stance makes of science a never-ending process of data-gathering and of reprocessing old data, of theory-building in areas of curiosity where theories do not already exist and of reconstructing old theories that no longer encompass in their frames, the data they purport to model.
Towards the end of this discussion we would like to answer the question which happens to be posed quite often, viz., whether empirical research first or theory what is the sequence?
To this, our answer would be that every verified empirical proposition presents theory with an explanatory obligation and every theory must face the facts of its own implication in that it must now imply a proposition that has been found to be wrong and false.
Theory may inspire research in that it implies one or more propositions concerning which there is no existing evidence, thus calling for ‘tying down the abstract logical structure to concrete empirical contents.’
Verified relationships may suggest new theories or modifications of old ones. The significance of empirical research lies, thus, not in the facts taken by themselves but in the theoretical implications that may be read into them.
The interaction between theory and empirical research is a matter of striking a judicious balance between quality and quantity. The hollowness of speculative theory without substantive data and the blindness of the raw empiricism without substantive theory have been repeatedly talked about in methodological writings.
Empiricists have sought to measure anything and everything and theorists have shunned empiricism as mere fact gathering. In the meanwhile the model-builders have sought to formalize every theory in mathematical terms.
This three-pronged attack has done much harm to our perceptiveness and imagination. The only possible solution seems to be that theory and research interact increasingly with each other in a way that they can mutually enhance usefulness of measurement and formalization.
It would have to be accepted that no matter how precise the measurement, a quality measured still remains a quality. Quantification is a great asset since it ensures greater reliability and precision in measuring the qualities which are theoretically significant. The indispensable working partner of quantification procedures is obviously the theory that determines what is to be measured.