HND Social Science

Linking Theory and Research

On the other hand we might examine a particular aspect of social life and derive our theories from the resultant data. This is known as induction research comes before theory and we seek to generate theoretical propositions on social life from our data.

Let’s now look at both induction and deduction and their relationship to theory.

Induction has a long history in the philosophy of science. It is based on the belief, as with empiricism, that we can proceed from a collection of facts concerning social life and then make links between these to arrive at our theories. The first point of consideration in this process refers to the relationship between in order to demonstrate that the ‘facts’ can speak for themselves and are distinct from the interpretation of researchers. Lets look at an example:

Consider the proposition, maintained some time ago by the results of psephological research ( Butler and Stokes 1969), that ‘more manual workers vote labour than they do conservative’. This is an empirical generalization about the voting behaviour of a particular group within society. Note, however that it is not a theory or explanation for the pattern of behaviour observed, but a statement of observation on voting collected by asking people, via surveys, about their voting intentions.

For the purposes of explanation ( in other words why manual workers vote labour) we need a theory. The form for this might explain voting behaviour in terms of the different primary and secondary socialisation process that manual workers undergo in comparison to non-manual workers.

Alternatively, we might say that manual workers tend to vote labour because they believe the party best represents their interests in maintaining materials securities such as housing, employment prospects and the ‘social wage’ in general.

The connections between class position and voting behaviour has been argued to have diminished since Butler and Stokes research (Dunleavy and Husbands 1985; Inglehart 1997). This however is a highly debateable proposition. Comparative empirical work on voting behaviour which is sensitive to clear and defensible definitions of class, aside simply from those that might predict voting patterns, illustrates that the connection remains, but has been complicated in its relations( Evans 1999) This illustrates that we require not only rigorous approaches to method and measurement, but also refined theoretical approaches in order to inform the process and interpretation of research. As social researchers our findings on the social world are devoid of meaning until situated within a theoretical framework.

A question still remains: why do researchers decide to collect such data in the first place? They might represent particular interests who are funding the research, or be personally interested in this area and have access to resources to test ideas which they have on the relationship between class membership and voting behaviour. Whether the research is ‘pure’ or ‘applied’ in this sense, interests have guided our decisions before the research itself is conducted. It cannot be maintained that research is a neutral recording instrument, whatever form it might take. As a result researchers should make their theories, hypothesis or guiding influences explicit and not hide behind the notion that the facts can speak for themselves. The very construction of a field of interest is itself a matter of academic convention that itself should be open to scrutiny. This is not a situation from which researchers can escape, for their interpretations are an inevitable part of the research process. An alternative to induction is thus to make the theories or hypothesis which guide our research explicit.

Deduction rejects the idea that we can produce research on the basis of initially rejecting theory, or put another way, that there is a distinction to be made between the language of theory and the language of observation. It seeks to fuse the empiricists idea that there are a set of rules by which we proceed as researchers, with the ideas of deductive reasoning which hold that if our hypothesis about social life are ‘true’, then they will be substantiated by the data produced. In order for this to take place , data collection is driven by theoretical interests, not the other way round . The question then remains as to how we know when we have arrived at the truth of our propositions?

Such are the difficulties of constituting a final resting, perhaps the best science can hope for is to render such concepts testable and so open to falsification?

We then arrive not at this final destination, but at an increased confidence of what is not by developing theories that can be falsified.

Thus according to the leading exponent of this tradition ‘scientists try to express their theories in such a form that they can be tested i.e. refuted (or else corroborated) by such experience’ ( popper 1970). A theory concerning social life must not only be based on empirical evidence, but must be capable of being falsified by such evidence.

The above acknowledges, unlike inductivism, that data are theory driven. It also sustains social theory only in so far as it is corroborated by empirical evidence. Therefore, it proceeds on the same basis as the methods of natural scientific enquiry to enable the production of a ‘science of society’.

Attractive as this sounds we are still left with some issues:

1. If our empirical evidence falsifies a theory, is this a sufficient reason for rejecting it? We might simply argue that we have found a deviant or exceptional piece of evidence, which does not falsify our theory as such.
2. There is a pragmatic point for us to consider as researchers. Until a new theory comes along to explain or research findings, we are unlikely to abandon which still assist us in understanding or explaining social life. Scientists in general are likely to hold on to core elements in their theoretical armoury that are not open to the process of falsification.
3. Deductivism still like inductivism is assuming that we can derive theories of the social world independent of our preconceptions or values due to its scientific method.