Do I have to post the course readings and resources too

 

Assignment: Inductive and Deductive Theory

Although the terms inductive and deductive theory suggest that these are, in fact, theories, they are really approaches to thinking and reasoning. In the inductive approach, researchers gather evidence and draw conclusions from it. They may begin with observations through which they can identify patterns. These patterns, in turn, help them formulate initial claims or hypotheses that can be tested. In the deductive approach, researchers may begin with a theory-supported hypothesis, and then gather evidence to support the claim (although sometimes the data may refute it!).

In practice, inductive and deductive theory are not as compartmentalized as the paradigms you explored in this week’s Discussion. A researcher may consider him or herself to be squarely in the conflict paradigm “camp,” and use that as the major framework with which he or she attempts to understand the world. Generally, researchers are neither inductive nor deductive practitioners exclusively, but instead may find that they utilize both within a cycle, with evidence informing hypotheses and hypotheses influencing the types of evidence collected.

For this Assignment, you perform a close reading of two brief case studies and determine the inductive and deductive characteristics of each.

To Prepare

Read the case studies: “An Example of Inductive Theory: Why Do People Smoke Marijuana?” and “An Example of Deductive Theory: Distributive Justice” from Chapter 2 of the Babbie course text in this week’s Learning Resources.

The Assignment (3–4 pages):

• Summarize the two case studies and their findings.
• Define inductive and deductive theory.
• Explain the specific aspects of these studies that make them either inductive or deductive.

54 CHAPTER 2 PARAdiGmS, THEoRy, And RESEARCH

example, is not a scientific conclusion. Obser- vation, however, can be the springboard for the construction of a social science theory, as we shall now see in the case of inductive theory.

■■INDUCTIvE THEORy CONSTRUCTION

Quite often, social scientists begin con- structing a theory through the induc- tive method by first observing aspects of social life and then seeking to discover patterns that may point to relatively universal principles. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967) coined the term grounded theory in reference to this method.

Field research—the direct observation of events in progress—is frequently used to develop theories through observation (see Chapter 10). A long and rich anthropological tradition has seen this method used to good advantage.

Among social scientists of the twentieth cen- tury, no one was more adept at seeing the pat- terns of human behavior through observation than Erving Goffman:

A game such as chess generates a habitable uni- verse for those who can follow it, a plane of being, a cast of characters with 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 small set of interde- pendent rules and practices. If the meaningful- ness of everyday activity is similarly dependent on a closed, finite set of rules, then explication of them would give one a powerful means of analyz- ing social life. — (1974: 5)

In a variety of research efforts, Goffman uncovered the rules of such diverse behaviors as living in a mental institution (1961) and manag- ing the “spoiled identity” of disfiguration (1963). In each case, Goffman observed the phenome- non in depth and teased out the rules governing behavior. Goffman’s research provides an excel- lent example of qualitative field research as a source of grounded theory.

Our earlier discussion of the Comfort hypoth- esis and church involvement shows that quali- tative field research is not the only method of observation appropriate to the development of inductive theory. Here’s another detailed example

to illustrate further the construction of inductive theory using quantitative methods.

An Example of Inductive Theory: Why Do People Smoke Marijuana?

During the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana use on U.S. college campuses was a subject of consid- erable discussion in the popular press. Some people were troubled by marijuana’s popular- ity; others welcomed it. What interests us here is why some students smoked marijuana and others didn’t. A survey of students at the Uni- versity of Hawaii (Takeuchi 1974) provided data to answer that question. While the reasons and practices regarding pot may have changed, the subtle redefinition of what needed explaining is still instructive

At the time of the study, people were offer- ing numerous explanations for drug use. Those who opposed drug use, for example, often suggested that marijuana smokers were academic failures trying to avoid the rigors of college life. Those in favor of marijuana, on the other hand, often spoke of the search for new values: Marijuana smokers, they said, were people who had seen through the hypocrisy of middle-class values.

David Takeuchi’s 1974 analysis of the data gathered from University of Hawaii students, however, did not support any of the expla- nations being offered. Those who reported smoking marijuana had essentially the same academic records as those who didn’t smoke it, and both groups were equally involved in tra- ditional “school spirit” activities. Both groups seemed to feel equally well integrated into cam- pus life.

LO4

1. 2.

3.

There were differences, however:

Women were less likely than men to smoke marijuana. Asian students (a large proportion of the student body) were less likely than non- Asians to smoke marijuana.

Students living at home were less likely to smoke marijuana than were those living in their own apartments.

As in the case of religiosity, the three vari- ables independently affected the likelihood of a student’s smoking marijuana. About 10 percent

54 CHAPTER 2 PARAdiGmS, THEoRy, And RESEARCH
example, is not a scientific conclusion. Obser- vation, however, can be the springboard for the construction of a social science theory, as we shall now see in the case of inductive theory.
■■INDUCTIvE THEORy CONSTRUCTION
Quite often, social scientists begin con- structing a theory through the induc- tive method by first observing aspects of social life and then seeking to discover patterns that may point to relatively universal principles. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967) coined the term grounded theory in reference to this method.
Field research—the direct observation of events in progress—is frequently used to develop theories through observation (see Chapter 10). A long and rich anthropological tradition has seen this method used to good advantage.
Among social scientists of the twentieth cen- tury, no one was more adept at seeing the pat- terns of human behavior through observation than Erving Goffman:
A game such as chess generates a habitable uni- verse for those who can follow it, a plane of being, a cast of characters with 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 small set of interde- pendent rules and practices. If the meaningful- ness of everyday activity is similarly dependent on a closed, finite set of rules, then explication of them would give one a powerful means of analyz- ing social life. — (1974: 5)
In a variety of research efforts, Goffman uncovered the rules of such diverse behaviors as living in a mental institution (1961) and manag- ing the “spoiled identity” of disfiguration (1963). In each case, Goffman observed the phenome- non in depth and teased out the rules governing behavior. Goffman’s research provides an excel- lent example of qualitative field research as a source of grounded theory.
Our earlier discussion of the Comfort hypoth- esis and church involvement shows that quali- tative field research is not the only method of observation appropriate to the development of inductive theory. Here’s another detailed example
to illustrate further the construction of inductive theory using quantitative methods.
An Example of Inductive Theory: Why Do People Smoke Marijuana?
During the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana use on U.S. college campuses was a subject of consid- erable discussion in the popular press. Some people were troubled by marijuana’s popular- ity; others welcomed it. What interests us here is why some students smoked marijuana and others didn’t. A survey of students at the Uni- versity of Hawaii (Takeuchi 1974) provided data to answer that question. While the reasons and practices regarding pot may have changed, the subtle redefinition of what needed explaining is still instructive
At the time of the study, people were offer- ing numerous explanations for drug use. Those who opposed drug use, for example, often suggested that marijuana smokers were academic failures trying to avoid the rigors of college life. Those in favor of marijuana, on the other hand, often spoke of the search for new values: Marijuana smokers, they said, were people who had seen through the hypocrisy of middle-class values.
David Takeuchi’s 1974 analysis of the data gathered from University of Hawaii students, however, did not support any of the expla- nations being offered. Those who reported smoking marijuana had essentially the same academic records as those who didn’t smoke it, and both groups were equally involved in tra- ditional “school spirit” activities. Both groups seemed to feel equally well integrated into cam- pus life.
LO4
1. 2.
3.
There were differences, however:
Women were less likely than men to smoke marijuana. Asian students (a large proportion of the student body) were less likely than non- Asians to smoke marijuana.
Students living at home were less likely to smoke marijuana than were those living in their own apartments.
As in the case of religiosity, the three vari- ables independently affected the likelihood of a student’s smoking marijuana. About 10 percent

56 CHAPTER 2 PARAdiGmS, THEoRy, And RESEARCH

political maneuverings related to monopolies beginning in the 1880s and continuing until World War I. Thus, theory served as a resource for research and at the same time was modi- fied by it.

In a somewhat similar study, Alemseghed Kebede and J. David Knottnerus (1998) set out to investigate the 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 mobilization theory, they felt, downplays

the motivation, perceptions, and behavior of movement participants . . . and concentrates instead on the whys and hows of mobilization. Typically theoretical and research problems include: How do emerging movement organiza- tions seek to mobilize and routinize the flow of resources and how does the existing political apparatus affect the organization of resources? — (1998: 500)

To study Rastafarianism more appropriately, the researchers felt the need to include several concepts from contemporary social psychol- ogy. In particular, they sought models to use in dealing with problems of meaning and collective thought.

Frederika Schmitt and Patricia Yancey Mar- tin (1999) were particularly interested in dis- covering what produced successful rape crisis centers and how such centers dealt with the organizational and political environments within which they operated. The researchers found theoretical constructs appropriate to their inquiry:

This case study of unobtrusive mobilizing by [the] Southern California Rape Crisis Center uses archival, observational, and interview data to explore how a feminist organization worked to change police, schools, prosecutor[s], and some state and national organizations from 1974 to 1994. Mansbridge’s concept of street theory and Katzenstein’s concepts of unobtrusive mobilization and discursive politics guide the analysis. — (1999: 364)

In summary, there is no simple recipe for con- ducting social science research. It is far more open-ended than the traditional view 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.

■■THE IMPORTANCE OF THEORy IN THE “REAL WORLD”

At this point you may be saying, “Sure, theory and research are OK, but what do they have to do with the real world?” As we’ll see later in this book, there are many practical applications of social research, from psychology to social reform. Think, for instance, how some- one could make use of David Takeuchi’s research on marijuana use.

But how does theory work in such applica- tions? In some minds, theoretical and practical matters are virtual opposites. Social scientists committed to the use of science know differently, however.

Lester Ward, the first president of the American Sociological Association, was commit- ted to the application of social research in prac- tice, or the use of that research toward specific ends. Ward distinguished pure and applied soci- ology as follows:

Just as pure sociology aims to answer the ques- tions What, Why, and How, so applied sociology aims to answer the question What for. The former deals with facts, causes, and principles, the latter with the object, end, or purpose. — (1906: 5)

No matter how practical and/or idealistic your aims, a theoretical understanding of the terrain may spell the difference between suc- cess and failure. As Ward saw it, “Reform may be defined as the desirable alteration of social structures. Any attempt to do this must be based on a full knowledge of the nature of such struc- tures, otherwise its failure is certain” (1906: 4).

Suppose you were concerned about poverty in the United States. The sociologist Herbert Gans (1971) suggests that understanding the functions that poverty serves for people who are not poor is vital. For example, the persistence of poverty means there will always be people will- ing to do the jobs no one else wants to do—and they’ll work for very little money. The availability of cheap labor provides many affordable com- forts for the nonpoor.

LO6

By the same token, poverty provides many job opportunities for social workers, unemployment office workers, police, and so forth. If poverty were to disappear, what would happen to social work colleges, for example?

I don’t mean to suggest that people conspire to keep the poor in their place or that social workers secretly hope for poverty to persist. Nor do I want to suggest that the dark cloud of poverty has a silver lining. I merely want you to understand the point made by Ward, Gans, and many other sociologists: If you want to change society, you need to understand how it operates. As William White (1997) argues, “Theory helps create questions, shapes our research designs, helps us anticipate outcomes, helps us design interventions.”

■■RESEARCH ETHICS AND THEORy

In this chapter, we’ve seen how the para- digms and theories that guide research inevitably impact what is observed and how it is interpreted. Choosing a particular paradigm or theory does not guarantee a particular research conclusion, but it will affect what you look for and what you ignore. Whether you choose a functionalist or a conflict paradigm to organize your research on police–community relations will make a big difference.

This choice can produce certain ethical issues. Choosing a theoretical orientation for the pur- pose of encouraging a particular conclusion, for example, would generally be regarded as unethi- cal. However, when researchers intend to bring about social change through their work, they usually choose a theoretical orientation appro- priate to that intention. Let’s say you’re con- cerned about the treatment of homeless people by the police in your community. You might very well organize your research in terms of interac- tionist or conflict paradigms and theories that would reveal any instances of mistreatment that may occur. The danger lies in the bias this might cause in your research.

Two factors counter this potential bias. First, as we’ll see in the remainder of the book, social science research techniques—the various meth- ods of observation and analysis—place a damper on our simply seeing what we expect. Even if you

RESEARCH ETHiCS And THEoR?y 57 What do you think

REVISITED

As we’ve seen, many different paradigms have been suggested for the study of society. The opening What do you think? box asked which one was true. You should see by now that the answer is “None of the above.” However, none of the paradigms is false, either.

By their nature, paradigms are neither true nor false. They are merely different ways of looking and of seeking explana- tions. Thus, they may be judged as useful or not useful in a particular situation, but not true or false.

Imagine that you and some friends are in a totally darkened room. Each of you has a flashlight. When you turn on your own flashlight, you create a partial picture of what’s in the room, whereby some things are revealed but others remain concealed. Now imagine your friends taking turns turning on their flashlights. Every person’s flashlight presents a different picture of what’s in the room, revealing part, but not all, of it.

Paradigms are like the flashlights in this gripping tale. Each offers a particular point of view that may or may not be useful in a given circumstance. None reveals the full picture, or the “truth.”

expect to find the police mistreating the home- less and use theories and methods that will reveal such mistreatment, you will not observe that which isn’t there—if you apply those theo- ries and methods appropriately.

Second, the collective nature of social research offers further protection. As we’ll dis- cuss more in Chapter 15, peer review, in which researchers evaluate each other’s efforts, will point to instances of shoddy or biased research. Moreover, with several researchers studying the same phenomenon, perhaps using different par- adigms, theories, and methods, the risk of biased research findings is further reduced.

LO7

Reference:

Babbie, E. (2016). The basics of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Chapter 2, “Paradigms, Theory, and Research” (pp. 30–59)